Page:History of Oregon Newspapers.pdf/82

Rh Delazon Smith introduced the following resolution in the earlier part of the session:

Resolved, that Patrick Malone be admitted within the bar of the house as reporter for the Oregon Statesman, and that Orlando E. Jones be admitted within the bar of the house as reporter for the Weekly Oregonian.

Thus it will be seen (said the Oregonian) that the Legislative Assembly, in the plenitude of its supreme power, has granted us the privilege of accommodation to report their proceedings for our journal. Although we have accepted the accommodations, such as they are, yet we deny that we are under the least obligation to the assembly for it. The contemptible meanness and party spleen manifested by refusing to furnish our reporter with stationery, copies of their printed bills, reports and resolutions, while they lavishly bestow them upon the Oregon Statesman, is sufficient to convince us that they would have denied a reporter for the Oregonian admission within the walls of the capitol had they dared. Therefore we wish Delazon Smith to distinctly understand that we repudiate the idea which he attempted to convey in his resolution to admit a reporter to a desk within the bar, that a representative of the press is indebted to him for the gracious privilege granted.

Mr. Dryer early in his career on the Oregonian made clear to readers and advertisers just where he stood with regard to his responsibilities and relationships to both these classes of patrons. He drew a clear picture of newspaper ethics, perhaps the earliest published in Oregon:

A citizen (he wrote) may express his opinion freely upon any subject, without giving offense; he may condemn error in unmeasured terms, and no man will say, "Why do ye so?" But if a public journal ventures an expression of the same character, there will immediately be found those who assume a censorship over the editor's acts, and claim the right to condemn him for doing what they admit ought to be done, on the ground that the manner of doing it is not in accordance with their "superior" foresight and sagacity. . . There are many (of this class) in every community.

We understand it to be not only the right but the duty of all public journalists to be faithful chroniclers of events, whether good or evil. We have always regarded a newspaper as a mirror in which all may look and see the events of the day as they pass, and as a journal in which are to be re corded for future reference the public acts and deeds of men; with marginal note of approval or disapprobation. Such we