more important in fact than it is in theory. In theory an
Editor's word -- subject to the Proprietor's veto -- is final.
He gives his instructions to the leader-writer, and the
leader-writer, presuming that he is not a fool or a head-
strong egoist or a man determined to flout his Editor's
wishes, obeys them. That is the theory. But there are
several mitigating circumstances. In the first place, it is
often difficult for an Editor to make his policy quite clear to
his staff. Next, the leader-writer, no matter how strong his
intention to obey his instructions and to enter into the
spirit of his chief, may fail to do so, from want of that
complete clarity of mind that comes only with personal
conviction. If not his own view, his own understanding of
the facts is apt to get in the way and prevent him carrying
out his duties exactly as his chief meant him to perform
them, and exactly as he himself wishes to perform them.

Again, by a sort of law of reversed effort, the leader-
writer may be too anxious to carry out his chief's wishes
and so may distort the Editor's view. There is yet an-
other way in which a loss of power may occur. If the
Editor had himself been writing, he would have seen as he
wrote that this or that particular line of policy that he
had adopted was not tenable, and therefore he would have
altered that line. The conscientious leader-writer may,
however, resist this conversion by circumstantial argument.
He may feel:

This seems to me to be all wrong, but I have got to make the
best of it. Otherwise I shall be taking the responsibility,
which I do not want to take, of altering my Chief's instruc-
tions. He said, "Defend the Government's action," so
defend it I must.

But the Editor himself may be in a similar position. If
he has an active Proprietor who gives regular and specific

-295-