The Osceola times., 1880-11-06
The Times vs.. the Banner

ceued ana followed, singled out
here and there a paragraph Of our
editorial of oct. 10th ult., and an
swers the same, no doubt to its en-.
tire satisfaction. 1t cuts off here
and there a detached sentence, or
struggling proposition, but leaves
the main body Of the article alone.
No reader Of the Banner could get
from It's article anything like a
truthful idea of what we actually
did say. For instance, we did not
say, and neither did you understand
us TO mean, that prohibition had
anything TO do with militia raids
We did not say, and neither did
you understand US to mean, that
we never heard of prohibtionists.
geaerdly; nor could human inge-
nuity construe our language into
conveying any such meaning. You
suppressed the preceding sentences,
and then attempted to convey to
the minds of your readers an erro-
nious impression of our meaning.
We never SAID that Churchill was
the democratic party, and If you
have half the sense we credit you
with, you never understood Us to
mean any such thing. You did
your best to beat him, the demo-
cratic nominee, and actively sup
ported his opponent. 1t was the
aim and object of the democratic
party to elect him, and you tired
to defeat this aim and object; and
in this you did array yourself
against the democratic party. We
gave you credit for purity OF mo-
tivcs IN your opposition, and only
reprehen1ed your opposition as ILL
timed and impoltic; and we still
adhere to the opinion then expires.
sed. Long after the meeting of
the democratic convention, even
down to the last days of the can.
yaSs, We advocated sober men for
office, and IN no single number of
the TINES departed from any posi-.
ton we had ever favored on the
subject Of temperance, and the last
number Of the Banner, prior to the
election, contained an article from
the TINES, published only n few
weeks before the election. Hence
your assertion that after the con-
vention, our "shrill notes" were
heard no more, falls to the ground.
You say you never charged Gen.
Churchill with being q drunkard.
Concede this to be tho fact, and it
will follow that he is either sober
man, or if he is a dr,mkard, you
never warned US of such an awful
truth. From the energetic man
ncr in which you disclaim having
charged him with being a drunk
ard, we infer that he must be a So
Der man In your opinion, and If so,
we have not been inconsistent in
supporting him as the nominee OF
the democratic convention. Either
he is a sober man, or he is drunk
ard ; and if you do not charge him
with being drunkard, because you
cannot truthfully do so, you will
have TO find something else outside
of the motive of temperance Oh
which 10 base your opposition.
Again, we have never advocated
prohibition, but have from first to
last, advocated Temperance reform
We do not believe in prohibitory
LIQUOR law, and We think a man s
knowledge Of human nature must
be small indeed, If he imagincs be
can pass any law which will cir
cumvent the ingenuity Of an uncur-
ed and ever craving appetite, tos-
tered and encouraged by social Gus
toms which have existed for ccntu-
rios. We have just about as much
confidence in a law which should
prohibit a person from falling from
grace, after he had renounccd the
world, the flesh and the devil. In
the border counties, the law would
be dead letter, and clandestinc
groceries, or liquor dens, would be
the order of the day. Men who
have the appetite to drink, and the
means to purchase the drink, will
always be able to get it, while they
can see, hear, understand and walk
or ride about and unhappily, hu'
man nature is so constituted that
the moment you say, "you snail
not do this" if it is to prohibit them
e.c,, do,no what they a~e IN the