Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1874-11-14

teV. MT. EuiCOus tu0 SHOO0tu lOt'
lowing the recent county talr. 1t |
seems to us that he has p0ndeved 30
much upon the matter during his
absence of two weeks that his judg.
ment has become somewhat warp.
ped: There In u vein Of spite and
hard feeling running through the
communication against the editor,
the paper, the managers OF the fair
and in fact everybody who differed
from what he said in that, ~ we
think, ill'advised sermon, which Is
not cOmmendable in % servant Of
the all-f0rgiving Saviour. 1t will
be evident to the careful reader that
much of the "Reply" has no refer.
ence to anything which appeared in
our former article. His quotations
from the laws of the State were an
after.thought, and were not men,
toned in the sermon; and he hasa
fling at US because we did not ''meet
these 1.-THE laws) fairly and squarely."
In reviewing u sermon we did not
consider it our duty to find argu-
ment for the reverend gentleman
neither was it our province to dis.
Gus any point not touched In the
sermon, Besides, we stated explicit
ly in the first article that we did not
intend to review the sermon only 50
far as it related to the press. Why
then does Mr.. Fulton devote nearly
half of his communication to points
which were not even touched in the
article "misrepresenting his ser.
mon." Surely we could not ME.
represent what we did not refer to at
all. These and other points not at
issue between Mr.. Fulton and our
self we pass over.
We admit that the text was not
quoted verbatim, but we cannot see
any difference in the meaning of
the two sentences "Why this wasteT
and ITO what purpose this waste"
Perhaps there is when considered
"textually and topically." Mr.. Full.
ton admits our assertion that his
sermon "caused much comment and
considerable feeling" irasmuch as
lie defends his position at consider
able length; making use of more
sporting terms like ''bull's eye" "baIl
with click" etc, than have appeared
in the OPINION during the eight
months it has been under our con.
troll. .. ....D. ..g
Mr.. Fulton, while denying that he
conveyed the impression that fairs
were not profitable, admits that he
did convey the idea that "fairs were
but little better than appendices to
horse racing" He gives a dozen
lines to the good which may result
from properly conducted fairs, and
then proceeds to speak half hour
on the evils attending them. 1t is
not at all surprising then that his
hearers got the impression that the
speaker believed that more evil than
good resulted from fairs as now held.
Before writing the article referred to
we cOnversed with a score or more
Of persons who heard the sermon,
soma of them among the most re.
spected members of Mr.. FultOn's
church, and they all said he disap-
proved of fairs. Whether our in.
formers are men "whose opinions
are worthy of respect" we leave
each to judge for himself.
Mr. Fulton gives his opinion of
the manner in which fairs are con.
Quoted at the present day, at some
length, which we need not review,
as our readers will bear in mind
that we have raised no issue with
the reverend gentleman upon that
point. We again say that we have
never attacked Mr.. Fulton's posi-.
ton on the fair question. When
he casts aspersions, Sunday after
Sunday, upon the press, we did ell
ter protest, and shall try to main.
tain our grounds.
Mr.. Fulton now comes to the mat
ter at issue between us, viz: wheth.
or the secular press (for of course
the reverend gentleman does not in.
clude the religious journals in his
charges) exert a greater influence
for evil than for good; whether they
VcuSt " UuO luClCdSO VI 1LuuOlNllVy VI
morality. While we admit that
there are some editors as there are
some ministers that the world would
be better without, we claim that the
world is better than it would be
without ministers and editors.
Mr.. Fulton styles the OPINION an.
"Organ" but does not say of what.
Perhaps he considers it the "organ"
of the Sunday School Workers, as
it gave the fullest report of there
recent convention, of any paper;
or perhaps, the ''organ" Of the Meth.
odist Society, for a few weeks ago
two columns of it's local page was 90.
cupied by a very interesting article
read before the Sunday school. We
do not know what the reverend
gentleman considers the OPINION
the Norgan" of, but we do know
what kind of an 'orgrn" we strive
to make it. and that is, q paper
whose columns are open to all who
dissent from any thing we or any
person may say or write publicly,
even though the communicate may
be hard on the "Organ" through
which he speaks. lf}
We protest against Mr.. Fulton's
putting the construction he does on
the sentence in our former article in
OR