The editorials we published were of a positive character.  We plainly announced the determination of the Government to assert itself and put down and punish treason.  We told the Memphis people that the scheme of partisan warfare, which was then in its inception, would work more harm than good to the districts where guerrilla companies were organized.  We insisted that the Union armies had entered Memphis and other parts of the South, to stay there, and that resistance to their power was useless.  We credited the Rebels with much bravery and devotion to their cause, but asserted always that we had the right and the strong arm in our favor.

It is possible we did not make many conversions among the disloyal readers of The Argus, but we had the satisfaction of saying what we thought it necessary they should hear.  The publishers said their subscribers were rapidly falling off, on account of the change of editorial tone.  Like newspaper readers everywhere, they disliked to peruse what their consciences did not approve.  We received letters, generally from women, denying our right to control the columns of the paper for our “base purposes.”  Some of these letters were not written after the style of Chesterfield, but the majority of them were courteous.

There were many jests in Memphis, and throughout the country generally, concerning the appointment of representatives of The Herald and The Tribune to a position where they must work together. The Herald and The Tribune have not been famous, in the past twenty years, for an excess of good-nature toward each other.  Mr. Bennett and Mr. Greeley are not supposed to partake habitually of the same dinners and wine, or to join in frequent games of billiards and poker.  The compliments which the two great dailies occasionally exchange, are not calculated to promote an intimate friendship between the venerable gentlemen whose names are so well known to the public.  No one expects these veteran editors to emulate the example of Damon and Pythias.

At the time Mr. Richardson and myself took charge of The Argus, The Tribune and The Herald were indulging in one of their well-known disputes.  It was much like the Hibernian’s debate, “with sticks,” and attracted some attention, though it was generally voted a nuisance.  Many, who did not know us, imagined that the new editors of The Argus would follow the tendencies of the offices from which they bore credentials.  Several Northern journals came to hand, in which this belief was expressed.  A Chicago paper published two articles supposed to be in the same issue of The Argus, differing totally in every line of argument or statement of fact.  One editor argued that the harmonious occupancy of contiguous desks by the representatives of The Herald and The Tribune, betokened the approach of the millennium.

When he issued the order placing us in charge of The Argus, General Wallace assured its proprietors that he should remove the editorial supervision as soon as a Union paper was established in Memphis.  This event occurred in a short time, and The Argus was restored to its original management, according to promise.