The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-09-13
For the Palladium
OF Inc FaIIadl I'm.
Tombstone

IomDstOneS-4Aeain.
MEssRs. EDrroRs: The author of Tomb
Stones had no i'll motive in writing, nor any
wish TO enter into controversy with any one,
but feeling the in ustice of some OF the re
marks Of a Friend we deem it necessary TO
reply
Although his attempt to overthrow or con
tradict anything in the article of Tomb Stones
falls so far short of his aim. and his argument
in defence Of their order so feeble that we
think it scarcely worth noticing. That
Friend" must be very presumptuous and
knowing, indeed, to say that he does not ad
nit the truth of my several statements. There
has been nothing related but what is strictly
true. and there can be several more such cir
cumstances brought forth, if the present be not
sufficient. He must either assert that which
he knows to be false, or be very ignorant Of
the doings Of Friends. One or the other must
unquestionably be the case.
AS he cannot nationally defend tomb stone
desecration, or offer the least argument in It's
favor. it seems that he wishes 10 rid the Soci-
ETY. of such, by denying that such has been
the case-an assertion which is not only pre-
posterous. untrue, but which he will get but
few to believe. Perhaps the shoe fits too
closely; it 50. we are not responsible for that.
Friend says that the Society should not be
held responsible for the unauthorized acts of
individuals. Did the head ones of some
meeting never appoint time to meet and dis
cuss, and set time to take up tomb stones9
If plain made grave stones are allowed, how
does It happen that so many plain ones have
been taken up? He SAYS they do not ask any
one 10 bury in their grounds; but yet it has
been done. and then the stone taken up Are
friends SO free from error. pure and holy that
none must dare find fault? Is it not the duty
Of all to do good. and endeavor to correct and
eradicate error wherever i may be founde Is
it not sin TO wound the feelings, or destroy
the property of any ones And are the doors
unreasonable, just because they have the
power But we will say no more. as we viii
as to stand behind curtain and throw stones
Yours. with respect,
Friend Liberalisy's argument in regard to
the rules of their church. is As weak as his
liberahty is scarce. He appears to think they
have a right to make what rules they like. and
10 enforce them as rigidy as they please. and
it is no ones business but their own Per-
hsps they have: but is that liberal or Christian
doctrines With the same propriety ight the
abusive husband say that his wife and chill
dren are his own. he will treat them as i'll as
he chooses. it's no ones business. The slave
holder iniicts any amount of punishment
upon his slave, and it is his own concern
The Catholics. under the same rule. have
burned to death their victims. The Nor
mons. on the same ground. think they have
the unquesuonable right to make and enforce
what rules they please. and have as many
beggsrly and neglected wives as they like
But wh>s philsnshrcPiss or lover of goodness
and justice viii ssy that any such rules are in
accordance with honor, freedom or religion
Has sny society, according to the laws of hu
mainly. right TO infics ou:rsges upon the
feelings of their members. and deem it no
body's business but their owns And does
any such indicate that they are honest seekers
after true religion and pietys And do they
deserve to be called righteous
!, I assure you that am 60 enemy Of the