The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1884-12-11


We are told the temperance people Of
this vicinity resented the wanton attack
of the ADVOCATE against the prohibition
lists, in way that is quite effectual. While
in making the attack the ADVOCATE ''puts
its foot in it, in trying to explain, it gets
the other foot in. The temperance people
respect an open enemy but despise Sc
cret foe." Doing what it can as a journal
to help the saloon interests and provide a
market for their wares, by advertising for
them, the ADVOCATE must not complain
if the people classify it as whisky adyo-
cate.-N. G. Nash in Canton News.
How the temperance people of this vi
cinity resented the wanton attack, we
are unable to explain. The ADVOCATE
questioned the motives of the hyperboli-
cal demagogue, St. John, who had bar
tered his principle? for greed, and claimed
before and after election that it was but a
slick game upon the part of the democ-
racy to use the fanatics mot the real pro-
hibitiopists) as cheap tools. We attacked
Finch and St. John, opposed prohibition
as national issue, never attempted to re-
tract nor do we wish to at this moment.
And in the face of the most damning tes-
timony ever laid at the doors of presi-
dental aspirant we feel that the charges
have been proven and that enough can
not be said against this st. John gang
and those who to-day uphold him. We
reiterate all the charges made and sinch
the expressed opinions by asserting that
those who to-day are upholding Finch and
St. John are not republicans. None but
bourbon democrats or wavering doodle
bugs even attempt to assert that the pro-
hibition movement OF 1884 was not in the
pecuniary interests of St. John and the
party interests of the democracy.
The News says 'the temperance people
respect an open enemy but desplse Sc
cret foe." Does the monumental dema-
gogue of the News mean that the ADvo-
CATE is an open enemy and himself a Sc
cret foe? Admitting that the ADVOCATE
is an open enemy to St. John we would
like to PROFOUND few questions. Is it
more eliminating for the ADVOCATE
editor to oppose St. John in the CITY of
Canton than for the editor Of itsScontem-
porary to spend part ofhis time in whisky
guzzling or lecherous debauchery in the
city of Yankton, St. Paul or Bismarck?
Does the opposition to prohibition as ma
tional question on our part class us more
distinctly with the whisky element than
the carousing OF brother editor, away
from home with renowned capitol-com-
mission? Does the continental hypocrlte
of the News mean to tell us that morality
and prohibition consists Of hypocrisy at
home. and iusttul indulgence in wine and
women away from home? If prohibition
consists of dissimulation at home, indulg
ence abroad in free-champagne banquets,
and all that goes to make up an ultra fast
character, we are an open enemy. 1t
christianity consists of immortality, anti
temperance at the back door, and rank
demagogueism, then God save the cause.
IF the moral leper will argue from the
standpoint that prohibition and christian
ity is made up of hypocrisy, acknowledge
ed demagoguery, malfeasance in public
positions, free-whisky and lustful indulg-
gencies, then class the ADVOCATE as an
open enemy. Ifopposing just such car
buncles to cause as St. John, and the
imbecile editor of the News, makes us
"whisky advocate, mark US as decid-
ely, and without intention of retraction,
just what the News terms us, 'whisky
advocate
The ADVOCATE is not attempting to
ride high horse. 1t acknowledges its
faults and stands ready to correct them.
1t is neither a prohibition or whiskey Or
gan, but were it either would stand de-
cidedly on the platford advocated and
practice what is preached. For one we
would like to hear from the News on the
Finch and st. John question. If its edit
or will confne himself to that issue, the
ADVOCATE will attempt to argue from
a correct standpoint, but if he jumps the
track and wallows in the ditch of person
ties it will be necessary for us to follow.
The reader Of the ADVOCATE
who has noticed it's course the past eight
years will admit that personal attacks have
been always avoided But when an ac-
knowledged leper, who is one of the hood
lums away from home, assumes the robe
of morality and charges us with identifca-
tion with the hummer element, it is but
right that the facts be given. Mr.. Nash
is not only an undoubted hypocrte, but
an indubitable ass when he attempts to
preach morality His issue this time
seems to be on morality. His own church
members or territorial acquaintance know
him as a moral leper, and disgrace to a
social or political organization. He is a
disgrace to the city of Canton, and a mon
umental failure as man. ......
A letter from Gen. Grant was read in
the senate Monday, saying that he hoped