The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1874-10-30
A DAYIEL RISES IYJUDGMENE

Ii (tlIe RegiSteT) Is the only Republi-
can paper in the State that had the man
| illness to denounce the temperance
| plank in the platform Gs az attempted
! rioLat6on If fttndamentGi TiQitts,a a mean
subterfuge TO win the votes of Prohibi
! tionists. -.SdHdUShV Register.
Does the writer intend to say that all
the other Republican papers in Ohio
were unmanly in their course on the
temperance question:
We do not wish to detract one iota
from the good opinion that the editor
of the ''onIy Republican daily in the
District has of himself We are willing
that he shall believe that he is a modern
Atlas, supporting on his gigantic intel
lectual and political shoulders the Tenth
Ohio Congressional District, and that
the Register sanctum is the political cen
ire of gravitation thereof, so to speak
We shall not object to his using the col
umns of his paper to herald forth to the
outside world the wonderful political
sagacity 10y which he saved the said dis
trict amid the general ruin and disaster
which overlook less favored sections of
the State on the 18th inst. Our only
regret is that this wonderful sagacity
had not been exercised in favor of one
J. B. Luckey, on n memorable occasion
not long past
But when this Daniel rises in judg-
ment against the entire Republican press
ofOhio (Cide his own language) and lays
at the door of each individual editor
thereof, the charge of insincerity and un-
manliness, he Oversteps thebounds which
liberal minded people always accord to
overweening egotisin, and forfeits the
forbearance which an unbounded exhi-
bition of ''cheek universally commands
The writer of this libel upon the honor
and candor of his brother editors was one
of the Committee on Resolutions in the
Republican State Convention which re-
ported the temperance plank. In con-
versation with the writer hereof, after
the Convention had adjourned, he said
that while he was in favor of ignoring
| the temperance question, entirely, in the
platform, J1ce said anything, are conld
not sag less than had been reported by
the Committee, and adopted by the
Convention. Does he pretend TO say
that the action which he now denounces
as an attempted violation of funda-
mental rights" was the least the Repub-
lican Convention could take in aid of
the temperance cause? If lce could not
sag less, and what we did say is an at
tempted violation of fundamental rights.
then does it not follow that, Gin the
opinion of the editor of the Register
eceTy legal effort to stay the evils of in
temperance is AN attempted violation
of fundamental rightSf'
We could have declared in favor of the
Adair law. Or we could have commend
ed the law forbidding sales to minors
and drunkards. kither of these ,by his
iOgicJ would have been as much or more
than what we did say, for he bears wit
ness that we could not have said less.
The logical conclusion, then. is that both
of these laws are violations of funda-
mental rights"
As we before stated We have no obiec-
ton to the Register man magnifying
himself through the columns of his own
journal; we do not complain if he deems
it best TO denOunce crusaders and build
upon the foundation of free whiskev.
but when he steps aside to call in uues-
ton the manhood of those who do not
pursue the same doubtful course. We
give 1t, as our opinion, that he has al
lowed his egotism to get the advantage
OF his good Judgment, as wei! as lis
good manners-provided he can boasttbe
possession Ot either