South-eastern Independent. (McConnelsville, Ohio) 1871-1871, 1871-08-18
WhIsky-Suck-
ers.c

The above is 8 rather expressive heading,
amt il? But while you are taking in is
force, we want you to note, also, that il ia
quoted. 1t is q quotation from our old
friend, James NJ. Gaylord, the "wheel-
horse" ofthe "new departure" Democracy
of Morgan. Gaylord is presumed to be the
chief editor of the Democrat, and he jumped
on us the other day on the street because
Of our defense Of Rev. C. W. COPYRIGHT,
whom the Democrat so falsely assailed. In
the course of his TRADE he said to US: You
need not expect TO get any Of these Pres6yter-
ian t0hiSky-sHckerS to r0te your ticket ~ We
give publicity to this to show the opinion
such men as Gaylord have of the Presby
terians of Morgan County. He publicly
proclaims them to be "whiskySuckers,"
and thinks. evidently, that a bottle of
whisky would have more influence over
their votes thar the teachings of Christian
ity; at least we Judge so from the editorials
he weekly puts forth in the Democrat. Gay
lord says if he goes on the stump this
Fall, he will ego for" the clergy generally,
Presbyterian, Methodist, and all.
THE Democrat of last week is full
of slang and false statements and
charges against us, but We do not
propose to occupy space IN replying
to them at any great length. In
truth, we do not feel that our read.
ers n greatly interested IN such
matters. When tbs Democrat so
unnecessarily and falsely attacked
Rev. c. W. Courtright, relative to
his business matters, we thought it
well enough to tell the people the
business the editor of the Democrat
had been recently engaged In, and
this IL the cause of the onslaught on
US. If the Democrat expects to GOV.
er up its mean and eowardly at
tack on Mr.. COPYRIGHT by publish
ing column after column of false
hoods and slang against US, we think
1t will be woefully disappointed,
and here we let the matter rest.
We would say, however, that
the Democrat would oblidge greatly
by quoting us correctly, when it
sees proper TO quote us ut all, and
to then adhere to the truth, even If
it finds 1t impossible - do so at any
other time. 1t gives out that we
stated that Richard Stanton, in Of
feriIg at one time q hundred doll
lars toward starting a Prohibition
paper, and James Il. McGrew, in
saying at one time that he would
take twenty copies OF a Prohibition
paper, placed themselves under OH
legations TO fulfill their promises to
rs. We never made any such state
ment, and the Democrat is entirely
~unwarranted in saying so. Our pa
per Was turned mo a Prohibition
organ long after .hose promises
were made, and long after they had
ceased to be binding on Messrs.
Stanton and McGrew.
The cry in the Democrat. charg-
ing us with selling ont" and being
"bought back" ETC., Is made with
the SAME view that was in the mind
of the editor of that paper when his
attack was made on Rev. G. W.
COPYRIGHT. The object of the at
tack on Mr.. COPYRIGHT was to de-
stroy his influence amongst the
people; the charge against us Is
made to destroy, the influence of
our paper. The Democrat editor
knows he falsifies whenever he as
serts such a thing. Ii we had sold
cut for half price one-halfthe num-
Der of times we have been charged
with selling out by the whisky
portion OF The Democrats of Nor
gan, We would be rich.