77)
little better. Against the political journals, in particular, he brought
the charge that under the pretence of serving the public they were
mainly used to aid the ambition or gratify the spite of their editors.

Even as early as 1832, Cooper had awakened the indignation of the press
by an incidental remark made in the introduction to "The Heidenmauer."
He was describing a journey through a part of Belgium in which the Dutch
troops had been operating the week before his arrival. They had been
reported as having committed unusual excesses. Of these excesses he said
he could find no trace. He went on to add a sentence which has
apparently only a slight connection with what had gone before. "Each
hour, as life advances," he wrote, "am I made to see how capricious and
vulgar is the immortality conferred by a newspaper." This remark was
warmly resented. It was asserted to be a declaration, not merely of
indifference to the opinion of the press, but of a preference on his
part of its censure to its praise. Its business, therefore, was to see
that his wishes should be carried out.

After the controversy in regard to the Three Mile Point, the attacks of
the Whig journals increased in bitterness. The state of mind it caused
in Cooper can be seen in a little volume, published by him in April,
1838, entitled "The American Democrat." This work is made up of a
singular mixture of abstract discussions on liberty and equality, on the
nature of parties, on forms of government, and of remarks on national
habits and manners. It is not an interesting hook. Yet it is fair to say
of it, that it is animated throughout by a lofty patriotism, and it
manifests a clear view of the dangers and duties of a democracy, (p. 178)
with its comparative advantages and disadvantages. But it likewise
exhibited some of the most uncompromising traits of the author's
character. In writing it, he was not aiming at popularity; it might not
be much out of the way to say that he was aiming at unpopularity. The
doctrine with which he sets out is, that in this country power rests
with the people, and power ought always to be chidden rather than
commended. He was accordingly liberal in criticism. But the value of
what he said was largely impaired, if not wholly destroyed by the
one-sidedness of view and tendency to over-statement into which his
ardor of feeling now habitually hurried him. In nothing is this
extravagance more strikingly seen than in the comment