Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1869-02-24
The Curwensville Teachers Institute

DODGE.
"Evcrvthing considered, We perceive that only
criae, ba,eaess and medioeri,y need fear from the
liberty Of the press. Crime repels IKE seeno'd
bassaes,, like a landmark and med'oen,y, hke
light" OHArhAubHANp.
All naughty editors You should
not have been guided by r;y epigraph,
as Won certainly were You should
have remembered Rev. Mr., WIS mild
"monition, in mis- first letter. "Whilst
we favor free speech, &c, we cannot
submit to such not meaningless thrusts,
and attempts to inlimidatc and bind
conscience" This plainly meant, that
allowing me to dispute bis assertions
-7as an abuse. perhaps profanity, of
"frce speech" &c You no doubt
imagined that he was "spoillng for a
fight" controversial, as he said of
necessitated, he could speak yet more
plainly and fearlessly in the future !"
and then he does not "bloC his ouH
trumpet" as malice might sag, but only
modestiy describes himself MS follows
GAS q lover of truth and justice, and
as a GOOD citizen, i will not yield
without struggle" Messrs Editors,
This bluster was merely meant rs a
scare croU, to frighten the enemy.
You understood him too literally;
hence, your impartiality has placed
him in a disgraceful and inextricable
difficulty. For this dishonorable posi-
ton. he cannot blame you or me.
His "Card" complains that the ques.
ton has not been yet fairly stated, and
that he has not been properly answered.
will again adjust my argument and
review ~ his labors. Every re-statement,
every additional refutation, will add to
his disgrace.
/. The question was not fairly sta
ted in my second article. You cast
the first stone, Rev. Sir; and when the
record Of your crime appeared in our
county papers, claimed the right TO
protest in the next issue; and after
twenty-one days appeared your first
letter in the Republican ard journal.
Why did you publish in the former, If
you did not know that my protest was
inserted in it also
In my last / cited the very words
of your first letter, (they are not no.
ticcd in your "Card, ~ in which you
asserted that the Constitutions pro-
fessed to be founded on King James
Bible, and that yourself and "the other
men of prayer" and the precocious
juveniles of Ne1 MHlPort Academy,
could read the Bible and pray ,ohea.
euer, i0hererer, and as cloud" as you
pleased And yet you claim that |
have violated the well-known laws Of
honorable debate, because i refuted
your crude and untcnable opinions
l followed you in your wandering
mazes lost, and you call this ian un.
manly dodge" Webster SAYS this
word IS never used Tin elegant com
position" 1t is you, Rev. Sir, have
had to eat your own words, or. as
your tocond "counter. blast" expresses
it, "forsaken and disowned your own
first. real. true born, and called it bas-
tard." This is not Blair's Rhetoric,
Rev. Sir; it is yours. 1t is of tho
Dime stamp with "Heenan and Hier,"
Taking the Belt" "Pugilistic style, -
"Cloven- foo" ""Unmasked," ""Unman-
ly dodge" &c, &c.
"With odious atheist names you load your foes
Your liberal Institute why did exposel
It never fails in Charities like those
Your ruse will do you no good Rev.
Sir. My accusation was correctly
stated and amply proved 1t is this
The Institute, in compelling Catholics
to listen to prayer, not only violated
plain command of their own version
ot the Bible, the Constitutions (U. s.
and Pa. but even claimed higher au.
thority than the Redeemer, for Ho
compelled no ono to hear Him pray or
worship.
III. Objections answered:
/. Rev. Mr.. w. is not a regular
reader Of the county papers Not pi.
ous enough for "these men of prayer. -
2. "By the mereSt accident he saw
my protest in the Republican," Very
grand, ard OF course equally true Of
"the other men Of pray or" atthe insti-
tute.
3. any reply was based on the pro.
testin the Republican" Very innocent
and truthful Ii 50, why did you in.
troduce tue Bible and common schools
Islander Catholics and their Church
And because l have reiutcd your
"twieetold tales" l have violated the
laws ofdebale This thread.bare pre-.
text blinds no one. The question was
fairly stated in my second article.
You should be ashamed to deny your
own words in your first letter. Even
IL my protest mentioned nothing of
Bible or common schools, still had
an undoubted right 10 refuto your
stale ealumnies, as | did in my second
article.
A. "Both versions of the protest are
his" Yes, sir and you cannot show
anything wrong in either, as TO ideas
or expressions.
D. 1T is my prorogaiive, not his. TO
choose about the version of the pro.
test. Oh ! OF course you are the iano.
cent wolf, and / am the lawless lamb.
muddying the sources Of justice-as
you hcroically asserted in your first
letter when you boasted Gn your
graphic Drama "Sccnc in School'D
that "Prof Shoemaker, Rev Mcssrs
Gray, Hays, Buckley, Guyer, &c.--
and everybody-may read The Bible
and pray whenever, lOhercper, and as
LOUD as they please" In the face Of
these words, QUOTED in my last. and
unnoticed iuyour"Card. y you are not
afraid nor ashamed 10 say you must
discontinue the discussion, because |
10 not comply with the "rnles Of hon.
o"ole debate" Is this the action of
"a lover Of ruth and justice :"
.. Prayer was not taught at the
institute, therefore lawful" If So
can Catholics say their prayers aloud.
or read their Bible. in common srbpols
or Insiitutesi No answer, tho asked
repeatedly
l. The Constitutions say nothing
about prayer" Can You sworsbip6
without prayer'