what newspaper in Chicago the last speaker [Howard L. Smith] derives his idea of the press of Chicago.  I stand here to say that there is no such paper printed in this city.  There may be one that, perhaps, comes close down to his ideas of the press of Chicago, but there is only one—­a weekly—­and I believe it is printed in New York.  The reverend gentleman who began the discussion to-night started into this subject very much like a coon, and as we listened, as he went on, we perceived he came out a porcupine.  He was scientific in everything he said in favor of the press; unscientific in everything against it.  He spoke to you in favor of the suppression of news, which means, I take it, the dissemination of crime.  He spoke to you in favor of the suppression of sewer-gas.  Chicago to-day owes its good health to the fact that we do discuss sewer-gas.  A reverend gentleman once discussing the province of the press, spoke of its province as the suppression of news.  If some gentlemen knew the facts that come to us, they would wonder at our lenience to their faults.  The question of an anonymous press has been brought up.  If you will glance over the files of the newspapers throughout the world, you will find in that country where the articles are signed the press is most corrupt, weakest, most venal, and has the least influence of any press in the world.  To tell me that a reporter who writes an article is of more consequence than the editor, is to tell me a thing I believe you do not believe.

When Charles A. Dana was asked what was the first essential in publishing a newspaper, he is said to have replied, “Raise Cain and sell papers.”  Whether the story is true or not, his answer comes as near a general definition of the governing principle in newspaper offices as you are likely to get.

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as ethics of the press.  Each newspaper editor, publisher, or proprietor—­whoever is the controlling spirit behind the types, the man who pockets the profits, or empties his pockets to make good the losses—­his will, his judgment, his conscience, his hopes, necessities, or ambitions, constitute the ethics of one newspaper—­no more!  There is no association of editors, no understanding or agreement to formulate ethics for the press.  And if there were, not one of the parties to it would live up to it any more than the managers of railways live up to the agreements over which they spend so much time.

The general press prints what the public wants; the specific newspaper prints what its editor thinks the class of readers to which it caters wants.  If he gauges his public right, he succeeds; if he does not, he fails.  You can no more make the people read a newspaper they do not want than you can make a horse drink when he is not thirsty.  In this respect the pulpit has the better of the press.  It can thrash over old straw and thunder forth distasteful tenets to its congregations year after year, and at least be sure of the continued attention of the sexton and the deacon who circulates the contribution-box.