There are not many things we like better than a row, a paper war between
a couple of newspaper editors; there is something so delectable in the
sincere cordiality with which they abuse each other--so amusing in the
air of surpassing wisdom and knowledge with which they contradict, and
in the easy confident superiority with which they demolish each other’s
assertions and positions. The most pleasant feature perhaps in the whole,
however--and it is one that pervades all the manifestoes of their High
Mightinesses--is the obvious conviction of each that he is demolishing,
annihilating his antagonist; while you, the cool, dispassionate, and
unconcerned reader, feel perfectly satisfied (and here lies the fun
of the thing) that this said antagonist, so far from being demolished
or annihilated, will become only more rigorous and rampant for the
castigation inflicted on him.
Another amusing enough feature of editorial controversies is the
infallibility of these worthy gentlemen. An editor is never wrong; it is
invariably his “contemporary,” who has misunderstood or misrepresented
him, either through ignorance or wilfulness. He did not say that--what
he did say was this; and if his contemporary had read his article with
ordinary attention, he would have found it so.
The editorial war being carried on in different styles according to
circumstances and the tempers of the belligerents, the hostile articles
assume various characters, amongst which are what may be called the
Demolisher or Smasher, the Contradictor (calm and confident), the Abuser,
and the Rejoinder and Settler (with cool and easy accompaniments).
Of these various styles we happen to have at this moment some pretty
tolerable specimens before us, two or three of which we shall select for
the edification of our readers. The first is from “The Meridian Sun,” and
is of the description which we would call