THE BEE-KEEERS' REVIEW. 



303 



ions of others which coincide with his 

 own, leaving out those which do not ? 

 Well, I would not undertake to maintain 

 that this activity is not techincally legiti- 

 mate. But it is so immeasurably lower 

 than the unselfish interchange of ideas; 

 it is so limited in usefulness, and yet 

 popularly made equal to the other, that 

 the man who engages in it deceives — he 

 employs that condition of affairs to make 

 one man's version of the truth of as much 

 force as a hundred men's, though each 

 of them may be his equal. "O, but they 

 have the right to do the same; and so the 

 thing may be evened. Two attorneys in 

 the court-room, two or more newspapers 

 in a city — that is the rule. ' ' It may be the 

 rule in the court-room, but is far from be- 

 ing true in technical journalism. To 

 have the right to do a thing, and to have 

 the means to do it, are two very different 

 matters. To get your opponents corner- 

 ed, then have your side of the discussion 

 cut off while articles on the other side 

 are printed, and then be told if you do 

 not like that style of journalism you can 

 start a journal of your own, is rather 

 ironical justice. 



I might argue at much length how one- 

 sidedness in journalism is to be deprecated, 

 pointing out how in practical life, sup- 

 posed truth, in one mind, invariably needs 

 to have little angles and corners rubbed 

 off by contact with other minds before its 

 universal fitness is established; how lan- 

 guage is so deficient that, sometimes, 

 only the criticism of an opponent indi- 

 cates at last the proper pre.sentment of 

 the case; and if at this critical juncture 

 falls the interdiction of a hasty editor, 

 the cause of truth is injured; and many 

 other points. But, really, in free Ameri- 

 ca, the desirability \oi free discussion 

 ought to be axiomatic. 



Assuming that it is such, have editors 

 any excuse for sometimes falling short of 

 their duty ? Doubtless. It is very easy 

 to criticise in one's easy chair, but quite 

 another matter to carry out one's own 

 ideas when confronted with practical 

 condtions. It may be there are pal- 



liations of which I have no conception. 

 What I do see is this: a discussion may 

 run into a dispute, and a dispute into 

 personalities. The farther it goes, the 

 more delicate the task of the really con- 

 scientious editor to bring it to a close; 

 hence he may naturally wish to do so as 

 soon as possible. Three of the ten ex- 

 amples quoted did run into personalities. 

 But was it not apparent from the very 

 start that they would turn out as they 

 did ? Then what was the editor there for? 

 By what process of reasoning will it offend 

 a contributor less to reject all articles but 

 one, than to suggest private argument 

 first of all, and then condensed and com- 

 bined last words ? Speaking for myself, 

 I would meet the editor half-waj- if the 

 latter course were suggested to me. 



Custom, no doubt, is at the bottom of 

 the evil. Editors have got used to being 

 arbitrary; but there are such things as 

 bad customs. This is a grave question. 

 Discussion is what makes conventions so 

 profitable. Can we afford to keep it out 

 of literature ? — for, of course, the actual 

 number of discussions stopped must be 

 small, compared with those that are not 

 entered into on account of the known at- 

 titude of some editors. 



I earnestly hope this will not be the 

 only article on the subject. 



M()NTKt)SK, Colo. Aug. 31, 1898. 



A Condensed View of Current 

 Bee Writings. 



E. E. HASTY. 



*' I'll trace the garden o'er and o'er, 

 And meditate on each sweet flower.' 



Our editor, the editor of Gleanings, and 

 Dr. Miller have it between them whether 

 cross bees have a special spite against 

 black or not. They stand two to one. 

 Hereupon I run to the assistance of the 

 minority, in the effort to make it count 



