The Somerset press. [volume] (Somerset, Ohio) 1873-1977, 1877-05-03


kind of retrenchment and reform they were
preaching up on election day, it is to be
hoped they will goi back to e.frs. prin-
ciples, for this look like going from bad to
worse. X.
EDITOR PREss-Words are inadequate
to express the terrible feelings of remorse
that filled our bosom when we learned that
We have been the cause of poor "Hope-
wells" discomfort. 1t must be horrible, |
indeed, for such Christian as he to go to
church on Sunday and be continually har-
rassed with the thought that these cold
men and boys" that "sneak along the
creek like sheep killing dogs" are at any
moment liable to leave those favorite
haunts and ransack the property in Hope
we'll. Let us look at the inconsistency of
his article. In the first place he tries to
impress your readers with the idea that
Somerset folks are the perpetrators of
these terrible deeds; then he admits that
he has been disturbed. by some he does
boys go down the railroad swearing in a
shameful manner. He himself refutes this
remark by saying that they sneak along
like sheep killing dogs" If they are afraid
Of discovery, as he wishes US to believe,
they would certainly not be so boisterous
as to swear loud enough for him to hear,
unless he was with them yet he is, doubt
less, too much of Christian to be found
among such blasphemers. Perhaps there
are peasons that do at times ransack prop
erty if he knows who they are, it would
be we'll for him to have them prosecuted,
but we do not believe that he can name
person that has ever pilfered on the farms
that are in .Hopewell. If he does, let
him show himself; if he does not, he
should be careful how he speaks. We
have often fshed in Jonathan Creek on
Sundays, as well as other days, and say
, that we have never yet seen an action COM
, mitted that could possibly injure any per.
. son. We are unable to cay whether we
s have ever trespassed upon his property; i
: we have, he: of course, has right to speak
o against our actions. There is one farm, il
Hopewell, that we were permitted to roam
'f over at liberty, and with the owners full
y consent; but such low-minded hypocrite
e as "Hopewell," made SO many protesta
n tions against this gcntleman's kindness
that he was at last compelled to request Il
i to discontinue our visits. Is it possible tina
te such narrow minded persons are to b
ST permitted to have control of mems action:
in Or, is freedom of conscience to be pre-em
re nent?
,e Such articles as "Hopewell's" makes L
st think that We have been almost hurle
b. back to the dark ages, when only tyran
N were obeyed. "Hopewell" has an idea th;
r man should not fish on Sunday. ! hoI
ne that he, as we'll as others who think as |
n, does, will never be found guilty of the &C
as but let those who do not regard that da
n with any more veneration than other
hr have the liberty of acting as they please,
r. long as they do no person any injury. v
nd do not believe that it is wrong to cate
be fish, and it certainly cannot be erin
er to catch them on Sunday, ii it is not {
its any other day. If Hopewells" mind
,rs not too narrow for reasoning, let him thin
Id while of the results that are sure
Id follow restrictions Of conscience. do n
think he would like to be compelled to =
,ly main at home ON Sunday simply becau
ID going to church is offensive to some pI
of JUDGED person. Perhaps it would be We
is for him to put himself in our place th
" is, if his mind g capable of grasping
In idea beyond bias judgment. Althou,
zen his article, in your last issue Of the PRE-
cy; may establish him as gentleman an sch'
,ok lar, he can never gain, among us the REP
the tation of being anything but a narr'
yed minded hypocrite, who makes pretentio
the to Christianity, but is in reality pers
md inclined to tyranny. These are the expr
md sions of "folks" in Somerset
- Disciple OF PETER