The Feilding Guardian. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 14, 1880. AN OBJECT OF PITY.

Feilding Star, Volume I, Issue 67, 14 January 1880, Page 2

The Feilding Guardian. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 14, 1880. AN OBJECT OF PITY.

The remarks which appeared in our issue of Wednesday Inst, in reference to the “Editor” of the Manawatu Times, and the lively production he is said to control, has had a fearfully wonderful effect on the “old party.” In the issue of the Times of the 10th instant we are again favored with another of his windy productions, and a lamer or more abject attempt to justify his past actions it is difficult to conceive. Although full of the stock-in-trade of his sanctum—abuse—he could not even then make out a good case, and after a labored effort to fill a colnmn of space, nearly half of which was copied from this journal, he appears to have thrown down his pen in disgust and acknowI ledged to himself that he was hopelessly—ave ignominiously beaten by his juvenile friend. Every line of the previous “article,’’ over which he no doubt spent many an anxious hour in building, fully convinces us that the agony and sufferings of the venerable u Editor” must have been something terrible, especially when lie took into consideration the fact that there was not the slightest possibility of arguing- the paint without sinking deeper into the mire: and what must have been his feelings on reading his “ article” in his calmer moments, after informing his confidential friends that his next thunderbolt would be a “ hot one.” No doubt his friends enjoyed a quiet chuckle over his great mental effort—and coidd it be wondered at ? Being evidently dissatisfied with his puerile endeavors to vilify the “juvenile”

-editor of this journal, the ostentatious old gentleman of the Times endeavors to draw .a red herring accross the scent by turning his attention to some imaginary individual whom he chooses to designate “ the man ivhat writes the leaders.” It is said “ That all is fair in love and war,” but we very much question the fairness of such a move on the part of the “Editor.’ I3y adopti-g-such tactics it proves conclusively that he was .afraid to openly confess that the •castigation he received at the hands of the “youthful” editor was brought about by his own folly; and he must ha ve felt heartily ashamed when he beheld his picture painted true to life. He knows full well—and it must be galling to his pompous nature — that the opinons expressed by us wei e

endorsed by nearly the whole of the people in the community of which he fancies himself to be “ the bright particular star.” Can we wonder, then, under such trying circumstances that the old gentleman’s last effort was a lamentable failure in every respect? This alone will be sufficient to account for his ravings at the imaginary individual to whom he attaches so much importance. 'The “ Editor” does a whine over the fact that every week we devote a portion of our space to extracts from l\ew Zealand papers, thus keeping our readers conversant with what is going on around them. We plead guilty, but in doing so we must say that we have the courtesy to acknowledge

the authorship, which we think is far more creditable than extracting their local “ funnyisms ” and palming them off as original. As we anticipated the bark of the “Editor” of our Palmerston contemporary is far worse than his bite, and when he is brought to the “scratch,” and confronted with his misrepresentations he endeavours to shuffle out of the

difficulty in the most approved style fl all this is what our venerable “ Editor’’ boasts of as respectable journalism, then we would rather not stand in the same rank with him. In conclusion we mu t state that as far as vulgarity and abuse is concerned our contemporary is far ahead of us, and we have not the slightest intention of endeavoring to wrest from him the laurels thus gained. As our venerable friend asserts, he is our senior in years, and he certainly is our senior in abuse, but we have neither the desire nor the inclination for our own sake and for the credit of the people and district which we represent to enter the “ respectable” ranks with him in this line of argument. If he declines to discuss matters in accordaace with the time honored rules of journalistic etiquette we must treat his efiusibns with that contempt with which they are invariably received by the general public.