The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1873-03-28
TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN.

by inuendo to impeach my veracify, and hay-
ing undertaken in the same Interest TO outrage
every Vlrtuous precept by an attitude OF bold
and wanfon defiance to public sentiment gen
orally on the side OF chaSify. will say that. as
much aS ! may regret the necessity, ana littIe
a am az fault for my name being connected
with the matter which has given occasion for
all this, am vet disinclincd to suffer under
the Impeachment implied in the NEW NORTH
WEST article In silence. / therefore proclaim
my readiness To subStantiate by tTrefuiable
facts and testimony all that has been said by
me touching the questionable conduct OF the
parties sought 10 be screened by system OF
oravadO and vilifcation leyeled at myself
say this much that no excuse may be inter
posed for not seeking that sort Of legal redress
which is always open to innocence, and from
resort 10 which Innocence has nothing 20 fear
JOHN BIRD.
The above, from the advertising col
umns of local contemporary, being a
lame attempt on the part of the owner
of the euphonious signature attached, to
justify himself for placing a scandalous
libel ''on every tongue in his vicinity"
thereby making the air of that delight
ful locality reek with the effervesence
Of his own pollution, we republish in
these columns, that he may have the
benefit OF ii gratis.
r
NORTHWEST, always "the champion"
of justice, having given you the above
benefit, shall unsheath her pen and pro-
ceed to review your "card," and see
what there is in it; but to do this effec-
tually we are compelled to give further
publicity to that scandal Of which you
will yet further "regret the necessity
before we shall have done with you.
You, "John Bird,n profess to be one
Of the ''pure in heart" that "thinketh
no evil" Yon are an orthodox, and, pre-
vious TO having proved yourselfa a pru-
rient spy upon the private walks of la
dies, were considered n respectable
member of the church Of Jesus of Naza-
reth, who not only never was guilty of
suspeeting women of improper conduct
which he could only prove by his own
footprints, but who, when n woman was
brought to him under positive accusation
Of having committed q crime, said
simply, "Neither do / condemn thee,
go and sin no more"
And you, "John Bird" also profess to
be opposed to the acknowledgements OF
women, on the ground that men are
women's protectors" How far you
have proved yourself disciple of Jesus,
and towhat an extent you can be trusted
to protect women, the above adyer-
tisement showeth clearly. So much
for what you profess to be and what you
are not. Now for your "veracity," and
the attempt of the New NORTHWEST
''to bid bold and wanton defiance to
public sentiment generally on the side
of chastity" Our readers have but to
re-peruse the article which you thus at
tempt to beslime, and then re-read the
above accusation against the aforesaid
article TO prove you most unmitigated
liar, whose own evidence is his strongest
possible adversary. That article was
not only not 4 defiance to chastity" but
it was most scathing and needed re-
buke TO all lecherous-minded "women
protectors" like yourself, who track
women to necessary places of retreat,
and then, finding their own footprints,
unblushingly proclaim them ''some
other mans"
just how little you may be at fault
for having your name connected with
the NATTER the above explanation
will show. Now, "John Bird" having
proved you liar by two most positive
acts and statements of your own volun-
tary will, how far are you to be believed
on your other testimony? \ man who
will tell one lie will t,Co, and the man
who will tell t,Co will s,Ccor to both OF
them.
As married women are ''protectedr I'd
Heaven save the mark by men, and
are in consequence unable to prosecute
slandering villain unless through their
husbands, and as the husband of the
lady in question can bring more than
one substantial witness who will readily
swear that they would not believe you
or your lecherous aceomplice on oath,
and consequently, he for the present at
least, declines to prosecute you, it is a
very poor argument against the lady
that such rs you should challenge her to
do that which, being in the situation
politically of a child, insane person or
criminal, Just as your wife is, she has
no power to do. Again, "John Bird, !"
when you speak ''of legal redress being
open to innocence" you very well know
you are telling another lie. The inno-
cent woman naturally shrinks from the
coarse ribaldry and obscene publicity of
4 trial for slander. Besides theprevious
character Of your accursed accomplice,
and the present light in which you stand
before the intelligent better portion of
the community, who judge you by the
company you keep, the tracks you make
and the words you utter, renders it
certain that you would stop at no viii
lainy in the way Of suborning anti-suf-
frage witnesses against your betters.
For the sake of your family, we deeply
regret this exposure Of your damnable
conduct. You have married and settled
sons and daughters whom we highly es-
TEEN, but for the sake Of the bright,
beautiful and outraged young daughtefs
Of the lady upon whom your lustful
tongue has fallen like a monster blight,
a family whom you spared not that you
might thus fasten the guilt of your own
thoughts upon the necessary private act
of the pure and innocent, we shall not