This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
The subjects upon which the editor of the New Yorker used to descant, as editor, contrast curiously with those upon which, as poet, he aspired to sing. Turning over the well-printed pages of that journal, we find calm and rather elaborate essays upon “The interests of Labor,” “Our relations with France,” “Speculation,” “The Science of agriculture,” “Usury Laws,” “The Currency,” “Overtrading,” “Divorce of Bank and State,” “ National Conventions,” “International Copyright,” “ Relief of the Poor,” “The public lands,” “Capital punishment,” “The Slavery question,” and scores of others equally unromantic. There are, also, election returns given with great minuteness, and numberless paragraphs recording nominations. The New Yorker gradually became the authority in the department of political statistics. There were many people who did not consider an election “ safe,” or “ lost,” until they saw the figures in the New Yorker. And the New Yorker deserved this distinction; for there never lived an editor more scrupulous upon the point of literal and absolute correctness than Horace Greeley. To quote the language of a proof-reader—‘If there is a thing that will make Horace furious, it is to have a name spelt wrong, or a mistake ’
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.