Milford chronicle., 1883-06-22
Mr. Wilson'S Reply TO nr. HynsOn's Third
Editorial Of June 49,

tAAfaN-AAN@ee
GENTLEMEN: Shut out from the columns Of the
Ns,os and AdUertiser, where we proposed e.
beard The liou in his own den, we sre compelled
to resort to you again, though with no intention
Of monopo'izing all of yonr valuable space.
So far as your correspondent, y ustice," Is
concerned we leave him to defend himself, as
fured that he is more than equal to the task.
But with Mr.. HynsOn at other points, we have
to deal.
/. HIS abuse OF MethOdists. Though reared,
as we are told within Its pale, from past and
present conduct We infer he is a bitter and in.
Veterate Zoe to our communion.
Il was he who formerly, without respect to
age or standing, numerically attacked the Rev.
], B. Qiigg, an hOnOred and useful member Of
our Conference. II was he who at the close Of
our last Conference, threw out insinuations as 10
the mercenary character Of It's members. And
itching, as We may suppose. for another Oppor-
tuuity to Won't rs spleen, grabbed up a few
libelous words respecting US and after nursing
them q whole week in the secrecy Of his sane
tum. rushed with them inconsiderately to press
and in the following issue, after his editorial ven.
ON had done ts work. that is. created a sensa-
ton, tells the public he has "gOne to consideTa-
Bile trouble to ascertain what Mr.. Wilson really
said" Had it not been for his inaccessible pre-
cipitancy, we will not call it "iOrty y.horse power
-" would be not have gone to that trouble
before!
But to rivet the inference that he is an enemy
to Methodism we have only to quote one SEN
tence OF his last: 'This IS very like The Methodist
who rdcules as absurd the nadbility Of the
Pope Of Rome, yet, naturally claims such an ex.
traOrdnary attribute for the minister Of his own
denomination" This must be very palatable TO
his Methodist subscribers. and yet many Of them
will swallow it and as much more. The Meth
olist Church Is either the most easily duped, or
the most charitable Church in the world. No
other people would be imposed upon IN tins case
as they are. There couldn't be a viler asperSon
on the character of both people and clergy than
the above, implying as it does ignorance and H.
lihcrality on the one hand and dishonesty and
tyranny on the other. reflection which he
knows is anything but true. For there is no
Church that differs oitener with its ministers aa1
he affirm it! Because, forsooth, there is yet lett
traitor to defend his pastor.
2. He abuses the prominent men Of Frederic'.
"There are some prominent men," he says,
"in Frederick who would give the rankest trea-
sonable remarks that could be uttered their
heartest APPRECIATION, there are others WHO
would eondOne such il uttered by their minister
and there are still others who would be bold
enough to express their displeasure"
What is the inference Why, that Dr.. Cahall,
DR.. Whitley, Robert Reynol Is, Ex-GOv. Hall,
James H. Anderson, Prof. Smith and all others
us are trait0rs-Benedict ArnOds If
yOu please; that those that are silent or who
have not been heard from cOndone our utter
ances; aud that those who have expressed dis
pleasure at what we said are loyallsts and jeal-
Gus OF their country's fame!
Jfthis be independent journalism" >" Is It no
time, for the sake Of human character, that
NANNY pamhy, invertebrate jelly fish journal
sts or editors, the opposite of this abusive one,
bad everywhere arisen!
5. HIS renewed abuse Of US.
The inference to be drawn from his whole re.
ply ls that he entertains precisely the same opin
on as when he wrote at first. He says, "Our
original remarks concerning Mr.. Wilson'S ser
non we're made from authorities we would cred
I eUey time (mark their infalibilityl he must
iredit them still.
He claims he gave both sides hearing. W.
.aim he didn't. He acted from the start as one
Who would not be convinced. and therefore did
lot seek the light. He says, "sonae mon Of hon
r in Frederica may believe it misrepresenta.
ion. but all do not"
We challenge him to name those that don't.
We ought 10 be the judge Of who arc, and who
re not. OuKprominent men. And from positive
nowledge We can affirm with "Justics" that
hey all believeit misrepresentation and brand
with far worse epithet than that. Il is one
hing to stand behind the curtain and say, We
ave the names Of prominent men that fully en-
orse what We have said, and another, 10 pro.
uce them; and it is presumptive evidence
lat he hasn't single one so long as be with
olds them and finally, is It not a legitimate in
renee frcn his closing paragraph that he he
sves thai our remarks on that occasion were
in that he says. "Some prominent
en in Frederick" would have endorsed the
rankest."
Read either Of his last editorials. and while at
mes be borders on exoneration (lOr which We
ank him) ho recrminates again and agAiu BY
" insinuatOns which as "Jusdcen claims are
/ more reprehensibe than the original.
All we asked Of Mr.. Hynson was a thorough
d impartial investigation and then # facts
1uld justify, and we were sure they would.
orough retraction. We claim he has not done
and in 50 far as he refused to do 1t he has
own up bis character as an editor, a gentleman
d a man.
And as no writing further we can do.will chapgo
n from bis course, for be dsclaims that he is
= ef your "namby pamby, invertebrate jelly
] sort Of journalists" WHO We imagine would
slow to make a mistake and honorable
,ugh to acknowledge and eorrectit, We, TIERS
e, lsave him in the hands Of lust and mSr-