Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1864-04-21


Whatever we may have thought about
the sincerity Of the Elders non-resistant
professions, we did not call it in question,
but rather admitted the possibility Of his
cohvefsioD being genuine. though recent.
lie does not, ii will be SEEM claim that it
is not. recent. bot rather tries to'raisela
dust abont another matter in order TO di-
rect public attention away from that point.
Is this the kind Of can.lor and fair dealing
by which this imam Of Cod expects to
commend himself to the world? He knew
too well that il he had ventured TO init
mate that he hal always or for any great
length OF time been enon.esistant either
in practice or profession we conld have
proved the contrary by hundreds OF Wit
ncsses. lie made a speech at Argos but
a little while before the election Of 1862.
and one shortly after, at Union gforifica-
tion over Colfax's election. in both OF
which he distinctly declared that he was
in favor Of prosecuting the war until the
rebels laid down their arms and submit
ted to the authority Of the General Gov
eminent. In conversations with him: long
since then and up to within a very few
months we have understood him to coin.
eide with ms in regard to prosecuting the
war until the rebellion was crushed. II
he differed with us he did not utter a sylla-
BE to that effect. anil all acquainted with
him know he is too fond. of controversy
and disputation to let any occasion for the
qualification Of this mania pass unimrro-
we'd. We suspect that his love Of contro.
versy is the true cause of the "change that
has come Ger the spirit Of his dream" in
regard to this matter. Some think cow
ardicc wrought j, but we don't think so.
for the reason that he was exempted in
1862. not because he was conscientious. -
but because he had "chrorie asthma" and
would probably be exempted again for the
same reason-perhaps has. We do not
believe that he put in tue plea Of u"censei-
cntious" at all in 1862. People may now
draw their own differences as to whether
the Elder is conscientious" in his non
resistant sentiments. .....r
We did not think 1t necessary to men,
iion the name of the young man from
whom the Elder borrowed the $780,
Why the pious non. resistant lugged it in
must be apparent to every one. He tho't
he could prejudice the friends Of the young
man against us by saying that we told him
we ''believcd him TO be desertcr." We
have no recollection Of making such a re-
mark. but however that may be. there is
no question. we believe. from the yonng
mans own statement. that he left the pa
role. camp, where he had been sent to re.
main until he was exchanged, without per-
mission. from any one. III we suspected
he intcnsledto desert he certainly gave Us
sufficient grounds. We chee,fully DO bim
the justice now to say that his subsequent
conduct has proved that he intended to re-
turn to duty; but the public would not
have known any thing about the circum-
stance hal not his conscientious, nor-
resisting friend thought proper to- drag II
into the controversy without any necessity
whateverifo his own defence Ii he is
annoyed at the publicity given the affair
he may thank the Elder for it. srs,5.
Bro-u G. says his conscience does not
trouble him on account Of accepting the
loan. But what does that prove? His
conscience like other peoples is the crca-
ture of education. and may be very accom-
modating. He is probably unable to see
himself IS others see him. Self-intelest is
often very potent in quoting our conscicn-
ccs and bliniing Us as to our inconsistent
cies. But. asks the Elller: "Was this the
price of blood. or was it the price man
paid to get clear Of shedding biool!'i- -
Now, Elder. are Won not ashamed to ask
such an absurd question, and attempt ia
conceal your inconsistency un,ler such a
thin covering! What is the difference DC.
tween man shedding blood himself and
hiring another to do it in his place? II
that a sample of your logic in the pulpit?
Bio. q. tries to raise a little dust to
blind people. because. in referring to cou-
pie of incidents narrated in the New les
lament, to show the sbsurdity and untens
bleness Of his new position, we did norem
ploy the exact language Of the sacred re-
cord. We did not attempt to do mor'
than give the substance Of the facts in on
own language which we contend we did
the Elders opinion to the contrary not
withstanding. The main idea we attemp.
ed to enforce in the first reference was
that Christ used force to drive the none,
changers ont Of the temple. Does not th
correct quotation which the Elder gives
establish that fact beyond question? Ger
L.. 4