As a general rule, it may be said that the literary, religious, and scientific portions of the Press are printed on good paper, and provided with useful matter, reflecting credit on the projectors and contributors.  I wish I could say the same of the political Press; but truth compels me to give a far different account of their publications:  they certainly partake more of the “cheap and nasty” style.  The paper is generally abominable, the type is so small as to be painful to the eyes, and would almost lead one to suppose it had been adopted at the suggestion of a conclave of ’cute oculists:  the style of language in attacking adversaries is very low:  the terms employed are painfully coarse, and there is a total absence of dignity; besides which they are profuse caterers to the vanity of the nation.  I do not say there are no exceptions; I merely speak generally, and as they came under my own eye, while travelling through the whole length of the States.  At the same time, in justice, it must be stated, that they contain a great deal of commercial information for the very small price they cost, some of them being as low as one halfpenny in price.

I do not endorse the following extract, nor do I give it as the opinion which editors entertain generally of each other, but rather to show the language in which adverse opinions are expressed.  It is taken from the columns of the The Liberator:—­“We have been in the editorial harness for more than a quarter of a century, and, during that period, have had every facility to ascertain the character of the American Press, in regard to every form that has struggled for the ascendency during that period; and we soberly aver, as our conviction, that a majority of the proprietors and editors of public journals more justly deserve a place in the penitentiaries of the land than the inmates of those places generally.  No felons are more lost to shame, no liars are so unscrupulous, no calumniators are so malignant and satanic.”—­The language of the foregoing is doubtless unmistakeably clear, but I think the style can hardly be thought defensible.  On general topics of interest, if nothing occurs to stir the writer’s bile, or if the theme be not calculated to excite the vanity of their countrymen, the language usually employed is perhaps a little metaphorical, but is at the same time grammatical and sufficiently clear; and, I believe, that as a general principle they expend liberally for information, and consequently the whole Republic may be said to be kept well informed on all passing events of interest.

If we turn for a moment from considering the American Press, to take a slight glimpse at our own, how startling does the difference appear!  Great Britain, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, with a population exceeding that of the United States, and with wealth immeasurably greater, produce 624 papers, and of these comparatively few are daily; only 180 issue above 100,000 copies annually, only 32 circulate above 500,000, and only 12 above 1,000,000.  It has further been stated, that there are 75 towns returning 115 members, and representing 1,500,000 of the population, without any local paper at all.