Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-10-29

with the decision. There were repeated calls Tor
him TO proceed, and he spoke on. II was now
near our hour for adjournment, when 1t arrived
4he announcement was made. Langston remark
cd eff the meeting has adjourned | will 70 on,
~ the audience want to hear me-" though we left
the ground Qf you did) while he was speaking.
II may be proper to add that a change of officers
occurred during the controversy. The gentleman
who occupied the chair while mir. Pillsbury was
speaking, was not the same that occupied it when
Mr.. Langston was speaking, The first might have
tolerated Mr.. Langston, the second have ~reproved
Mr.. Pillsbury. The change was unfortunate in
view of the termination. But the society must
not DO held responsible (f you think it should
not) for the change, or any apparent unfairness
growing out of it.
The Financial ommitte was not as successful
90 usual less money collected, and fewer pledges
made. Our efficiency for the future, will there
fore, depend mainly upon the prcmptness OF the
friends Of the Society in supplying the necessary
funds. Let each and every one consider them
selves members of the Finance Committee, and
work diligently, faithfully. In no other way can
an efficient organization be maintained.
About one-third of the canvass enclosing the
tent was torn do wn on Sunday night, showing
that Alliance is not without its share of rowdy.
ism.
IA fault, or at least q folly was committed at
our meeting, and the blame rests with US. or Mr..
Langston and his Republican friends. If our
readers can fasten it upon them, we would much
rather than bear it ourselves
Such a statemen as the foregoing, would have
given your readers the important facts, and ena-
blod them to decide intelligently.
You must know that when you spoke of a de-
fender of the Republican party occupying the
platform, it would be understood he was there for
that purpose. If you had said, it was occupied by
n defender of tobacco chewing, your readers would
of course have understood he was there for the
purpose of defending the filthy practice. Or, if a
defender of Mormonism, that Brigham Young had
been justified by the speaker in his sealing pro-
cess, and reports of the speeches would have been
nuxiously sought after in your columns.
All who were present know that, Republican
though he be, Langston was not there as q de-
fender of that party. His speech is now publish
cd as furnished by your own reporter, and ask
your readers to refer to it and see whether you
have fairly answered the questions | propounded
in reference to il. Your first three answers you
admit refer to his first speech, and if any one on
read:ng it can agree with you, then / will have to
admit that you do not staud alone. Parker Pills
bury run no risk in indorsing it, and Charles
Langston is not such a fool as to have replied to
1t, as a speech in favor of Republicanism. To get
an emphatic No, to the fourth question, you mako Il
apply to his second speech of course Parker new
'er indorsed a speech in which he was severely cas-
tigated, with all his forbcarance he is notthe man
for that. The questions all pertained to the first
speech ; did you fail to see it? His last effort
could hardly be called a speech it was a vindi-
cation of character, an effort to show he might be
q reasonably decent man and retain such connec-
tions as he held with the Republicans. He de
fendej the party no further than he deemed neces
sary, to defend himself. He had little timo left
before adjournment; was repeatedly interrupted
spoke under excitement, and to an excited audi
ence. The first was his speech, the last his de
fence.
Societies, or individuals have an undoubted
right to the disposal of their own property. o
that l am already satisfied and needed no argu
ment to o ,nvince me. When l pay money into
yourtreasury, the Society through its Executive
Committe may appropriate it in buying printing
presses, tents, or in any way it thinks the cause
can be most effectually promoted. and it is non'
of my business. I claim no right to control it,
funds, no right to the press, or tent it bought
But l will have again to remind you, that | claim
the tent was not paid for in this way. / an no
4he only one who helpedsto pay for il, to hole
Auti-Slavery meetings in, and not as the property
of the " estern Anti-Slavery Society, or any othel
Society. Now if bought for that purpose, Anti
Slavery has a right to go in and hold its meetings
priority of right, to its occupancy, to be determ
iued by priority of announcement for meeting
Langston or any person else had a perfect right te
hold an Anti-Slavery meeting in it when vacated
Your, meeting had adjourned, and would not con
Vene again until nine o'clock next morning. En-
tertaining this view, I am free to say. you mus
have been as hard pushed for something out Of
which 20 make capital against Langston and hi
friends, as 1 possibly could have been for ar
argument in justification of his course. The only
reason why this subject has not been called NJ
before, is because q claim was never before often
siyely institr ted. But who owns the tent? Is i
the property of the Western Anti-Slavery Society
IF it is, how did it get the money to pay for it
The Oberlin folks sold it cheap, it was not a pres
eht. Establish your property right to it, and coun
me in, in defense of that right against white
black, or red men. l will not ask you what ue'
you have for it, when you are not using it, MOI
call in question your right to rent it as halls ane
meeting houses sometimes are.
Intentionally, or otherwise. you have got Sam
uel Myers wrong upon the record. 1t was Par
ksr's' speech he condemned as the sectarianism O.
AntiseVery. The remark was made Sefore per
sonalities were decided out Of order, and conse
auently before Langston and his friends converted
an organised into a free meeting.
aAbsence from home, in part, prevented my Civ
isg earlier attention to your last article. l an
now satisfied to leave the subject to the disposal Q
yonr. readers. o f...