Even here, at home, we find two opinions as to the cause of the Herald’s vast success as a business.  One of these opinions is this,—­the Herald takes the lead because it is such a bad paper.  The other opinion is,—­the Herald takes the lead because it is such a good paper.  It is highly important to know which of these two opinions is correct; or, in other words, whether it is the Herald’s excellences as a newspaper, or its crimes as a public teacher, which give it such general currency.  Such success as this paper has obtained is a most influential fact upon the journalism of the whole country, as any one can see who looks over a file of our most flourishing daily papers.  It is evident that our daily press is rapidly becoming Heraldized; and it is well known that the tendency of imitation is to reproduce all of the copy excepting alone that which made it worth copying.  It is honorable to the American press that this rule has been reversed in the present instance.  Some of the more obvious good points of the Herald have become universal, while as yet no creature has been found capable of copying the worst of its errors.

If there are ten bakers in a town, the one that gives the best loaf for sixpence is sure, at last, to sell most bread.  A man may puff up his loaves to a great size, by chemical agents, and so deceive the public for a time; another may catch the crowd for a time by the splendor of his gilt sheaf, the magnitude of his signs, and the bluster of his advertising; and the intrinsically best baker may be kept down, for a time, by want of tact, or capital, or some personal defect.  But let the competition last thirty years!  The gilt sheaf fades, the cavities in the big loaf are observed; but the ugly little man round the corner comes steadily into favor, and all the town, at length, is noisy in the morning with the rattle of his carts.  The particular caterer for our morning repast, now under consideration, has achieved a success of this kind, against every possible obstacle, and under every possible disadvantage.  He had no friends at the start, he has made none since, and he has none now.  He has had the support of no party or sect.  On the contrary, he has won his object in spite of the active opposition of almost every organized body in the country, and the fixed disapproval of every public-spirited human being who has lived in the United States since he began his career.  What are we to say of this?  Are we to say that the people of the United States are competent to judge of bread, but not of newspapers?  Are we to say that the people of the United States prefer evil to good?  We cannot assent to such propositions.