The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1880-11-05

mates, to prove to his frinds zfiUotely
such charges as he chooses to make
publicly. But at Baltimore he was not
so regardful of something he vaguely
styles good purposes" as he now is.
Why not? Surely such evidence as he
deemed substantial enough to publish
IN the papers of Baltimore would re-
ceiye the careful consideration of a
jury in Kenosha. Why can't the jury
have it? Just as surely would the col
umns of the TELEGRAPH be open to
receive anything in the line of proof
that had appeared in the journals of
Baltimore. Where is the difficulty?
Then as to good purposes" Will it
not appear to those who heard Mr..
Cufr's charges of gross immortality
against Mr.. Bradlaugh, that it would
be good plrpOse" served if such
charges could be made good? Will
they not also ask themselves, in this
connection, how it comes about that
Mr.. Bradlaugh could for twenty-five or
thirty years lead public life, be re.
elected year after year to the Presi-
dency of the National Secular Society,
be met IN public debate by men of high
standing in the churches, finally elected
a member of Parliament, largely by the
votes of a prOfessedly Christian people
among whom the denomination re-
presented by Mr.. Allan Curr was con-
spicuous- sand yet be a man of the
"grossest immorality?" Nay, more
than this. Mr.. CuTr said he had him.
self met the disreputable Atheist in
public discussion. Was this before he
knew Mr.. Bradlaugh to be a person of
the yilest character, or was it after
wards? If before, what was the date
of that meeting, and was Mr.. Brad
laugh at that time man of good moral
character? If afterwards, why did a
gentleman Of Mr.. Curr's intellectual
and spiritual attainments condescend
to appear on the same platform with
such a man? Mr.. Curr offers to show
tie. documentary and other evidence
to any proper party, including myself,
who will call upon him. But he for
gets that he has already tod me what
that evidence is. He can keep it in his
pocket; am not in the hushing up"
business, although l might call upon
the Rev. Mr.. Miller and tell him that a
pamphlet entitled the "Fruits of Phil
osophy," represented by Mr.. Curr to
have been written by Mr.. Bradlaugh,
was not written by that gentleman at
all. That pamphlet was the produc-
ton of an American physician of high
standing, and Mr.. Bradlaugh, in his
capacity of book publisher, reproduced
the work in London. could also tell
Mr.. Miller that one of the first writer's
who dealt with the subject treated in
that pamphlet was Christian minister
and clergyman of the Church of Eng
landau intimatiOn that may possibly
recommend works of that kind to
more favorable consideration on his
part But l do not shrink from the
publicity into which Mr.. Curr's viola
tion of scripture-"lying lips are an
abOmination has drawn me. Your
readers will not forget that he made
public charges against Mr.. Bradlaugh;
that being publicly called upon to prove
them, he refuses; that what he
says in his letter about the dis
closure serving no good purpose here
is inconsistent with his other statement
that he had disclosed the evidence at
Baltimore, IN the papers. Mr.. Curr
closes his letter with a little pleasantly
at the expense of Englishmen. have
no inclination, Mr.. Editor, to analyze
at this time the characteristics of
either nationality; for my part,
oftener think of my relation to human
ity than to England, and, following
hard upon that, of the country of my
adoption, rather than the place where
| was born. But l have this to say
concerning Scotchmen, that among
many have known and still count in
the circle of my friends, have always
found a sturdy love of truth, an honest
mind, a judicious speech, and great
dislike for pharisaical clap-trap, to be
marked characteristics of their race.
Thefaet of Mr.. Cu1r's nationality does
not materially change my view.
I am, Mr.. Editor, respectfully,
A. S. EDWARDS.
The above was unavoidably crowd
ed out last week.