We lack space to follow the course of journalism closely through its hundred battles since the war of 1812. IIow the partisans raved over the first defeat of gen. Jackson in 1824; the incipient rebellion in South Carolina; Jackson's war with the States hank; the furious anti-masonic crusade; the tremendous financial disasters of 1837, which overthrew the Democratic party; the gallant but futile struggles of Henry Clay; the war of tariff and free-trade, "still beginning, never ending;" the native American campaign; the annexation of Texas; the Mexican war; the contest of the north and south, that found an ending which was not an end in the compromise measures; the California annexation and the gold craze; the Kansas struggle; the death of the Whig, the birth of the republican, and the division of the democratic party; the election of Lin coln; the dreadful struggle with the rebellion; the triumph of the union; the dark days I of commercial distress—all these are in the history of journalism, but so vividly remem bered that further reference is quite unnecessary.
Of the men who have been conspicuous in connection with American journalism, we cannot pretend to give a catalogue. Before and during the revolution, and down to the second war with England, nearly all public men of importance spoke through the press. In the newspapers were heard James Otis, Samuel Adams, Joseph Warren, John Han cock, Jonathan Mayhew, and scores of their brethren. Jefferson, Madison, Burr, Ham ilton, Clinton, Jay, and scores of other politicians were heard in the same manner. Ben jamin Franklin, and Noah Webster, and Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, were early in the long line of "able editors." William Cobbett created a sensation in Philadelphia with his Porcupine; and James Cheetham, and William Duane, and William Coleman were eminent in this field. In the later time we find such names as Seba Smith, Jr., the origi nal "Major Jack Downing;" Francis Hall, William L. Stone, John Inman and Robert C. Sands of the New York Commercial Adrerti,qer; Mordecai M. Noah, Nathaniel Willis, grandfather of the poet; William D. Gallagher, William Schouler, Richard Haugh ton, Samuel .Medary, Charles C. llnzewcll, Samuel S. Cox, John 13. McCullough, Joseph Medill, Horace White, Wilbur F. Storey, William Cullen Bryant, .James Watson Webb, Horace Greeley, James Gordon Bennett, Henry J. Raymond, Manton Marble, James and Erastus Brooks, Charles King, William Leggett, John Bigelow, Thurlow Weed, Edwin Croswell, Redwood Fisher, Joseph Gales, Ilevekiali Niles, P. Blair, Duff Green, William W. Seaton, John Rives, Amos Kendall, Thomas Ritchie, George D. Prentice, George W. Kendall, Don Piatt, Frederick Douglass, Solomon Southwick, John H. Pleasants, Isaac Hill, William Cassidy, Henry Wheaton, Moses Y. Beach, Sidney E. Morse, Henry W. Bellows, Henry M. Field, Henry Ward Beecher, Gulian C. Verplanck ; George P. Morris, Nathaniel P. Willis, Park Benjamin, Henry B. Anthony, Whitelaw Reid, William Sprague, George Win. Curtis, Josiah G. Holland, William D. Howells, George H. Andrews, David Hale, Gerard IIallock, William C. Prime, David 31. Stone, William W. Clapp, Joseph T. Buckingham, Theophilus Parsons, George Lunt, William
Lloyd Garrison, John Neal, Samuel Bowles, John S. Sleeper, E. C. Bailey, R. Barnwell Rhett, Rufus Dawes, John Forsyth, George W. Childs, John W. Forney, William M. Swain, Russel Jarvis, Willis Hall, Charles A. Dana, Sidney Howard Gay, Oliver John son, John Russell Young, William G. Brownlow, Murat Halsted, Henry Watterson, Richard Smith, George Dawson, Thomas Kinsella, Jonas M. Bundy, Hugh Hastings, Charles E. Smith, and three times as many more quite as deserving of mention.
Of the influence of this aggregation of intellect upon the country we set forth no opinion. It is certain that the once almost despised journalist who took cord-wood and garden-truck in pay for his 7 by 9 sheet, has risen to the highest social and politi cal position. While about the last class of citizens who are willihg to do as they ask others to db—assume office and discharge its duties—not a few of them have been chosen to such duties by the people. No professional journalist has yet been president of the United States, but one has been vice-president ; a few have been governors of states; a large number have been United States senators and members of congress; some of them have been ministers to foreign countries, and several have declined that honor. One is now a cabinet officer. In the 41st congress there were 8 editors in the senate and 26 in the house, the speaker being one of them. In the succeeding congresses the numbers have been about the same. The proportions in most of the state legislatures are consid erably larger.
Some of the prominent features of modern journalism, besides the dominant idea of the news and all the news, are the fullness of reports of matters of public importance. When the news of the great battle of Waterloo reached London, the Times told the story in less than half a column. Such an event to-day would occupy twenty or thirty col umns. The resources of journalism were well exemplified in our rebellion, when "extras" were issued almost hourly on important occasions, and the press was constantly in motion. Modern reporting is nearly perfect; but that does not satisfy the newspapers, and it has been supplemented by a system of endless and minute inquiry known as " interviewing," whereby all men wlio are suspected of knowing anything of any particu lar matter are visited by reporters and questioned and cross-questioned until the last item of information has been extracted ; and this not only in matters of fact but in matters of opinion. Journalism compels the world to stand and testify on every conceivable topic that may, in the journalist's opinion, interest the reader. Add to this searching inquiry the inevitable editorial comment, and it must appear that the research and the combina tions of facts. opinions, and speculations thereon by modern journalism are as complete and as exhaustive, though not as guarded, as the most formal and satisfactory trial in a court of justice. This "interview" is a kind of moral rack on which any man may be stretched without a moment's warning. Whether its results are good or bad, we leave others to judge. .