The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1885-06-25
Still More About the Fish Law
Fishing for a Livinr-H.
?. WIS Superiority.
For the CITIZEN.

that we correspond to our warm and
heartfelt friend, THE CITIZEN. Till
CITIZEN, if it deceives me not, is
everybody's friend and allows every
body their own opinion which va
rics considerably in form still if ii
be a PERSONS honest belief it's an
argument. In a former issue OF
the CITIZEN was opened the "Cuh
and Collar Mans Law" by II. p.
w. Of Bethel, who possesses from
an idea expressed in his last (the
one | wish to reply toy a superior
merit to those Of the rest of his
gang (the cuff and collar CLASSY
His article placed me with the la
boring class, that is with field
hands, or those that are deprived OF
the privilege of fishing for living
still | never have presented an ar
ticle to the CITIZEN entitled "Self
Indulgence of the Laws" While
appreciate my opponents criticism
and the source from whence it
came, l dislike to have the title of
my article changed to make it have
a different bearing. If my oppon-
ent will notice he will find it ''Self-
Indulgence of the Law" wherein it
only includes selfishness brought
about by fishing or seining. In the
very offset of his article he made an
expression that is in direct opposi-
ton to his article unless he is supe-
rior to the rest. To affirm the above
we will take his own language a:
THAT may not incur too severe
condemnation from the cuff and
collar man, permit me to state that
/ am accustomed to wearing collars
and own a few cuffs but own no real
estate in Tennessee" His idea can
be more clearly expressed in this
language: "That l may not present
my article in direct opposition to
my own belief and doctrine, permit
me to include myself with the cuff
and collar class, for | am accustom-
ed to wearing cuffs and collars, but
am rid of selfishness as to the fish
law, as l own no real estate in Ten
nessee." If the law prohibiting sein-
ing is entirely for the interest of the
cuff and collar class, as advocated
by my gigantic opponent, and being
a member of the great "Stiff
Neck Faculty." why does he not ap-
prove OF the law? It's because he
does not approve of something that
IS not for the interest of the people
generally. We are forced to believe
that the majority of the cuff and
collar class approve of the law mas
much as it is to their personal wei
fare, therefore my friend II. P. w. is
little superior to the rest of the
crew. O, yes; it's melancholy
fact; II. P. w. is studying the inter
est of the southern people, but here
cts look at the thing from a stand
point of reason. He claims that
5he law forbidding SEEMING is entire
" to the interest of those that are
at leisure during the fishing sea
son, because the laboring man has
40 time to waste with such sport.
[ ask the question, would it i'm
prove the circumstances of the la
boring man were they permitted to
seine? Would they have any more
chance to seine than to fish? Sure
" not; hence it is to their interest
.naomuch as they can't afford to
ose much time to have a law pro-
libiting the members of the great
Stiff Neck Faculty to just shower
n with their seines and rob the
creeks and poor people because
they have the time to spend and
delight in such malicious devil
ment.
If such were the law and if the
poor people, such as myself, had an
opportunity to fish or seine, 1t
would be useless, for the other
class would have the very sandbot-
toms OF the streams scraped, so
they would be entirely left out,
therefore the law was established
for the interest of all. H. p. w.
made very wide mistake when he
said "the law prohibiting seining
was engineered through the legisla-
Iure for a certain class" They
don't do that kind Of business. Men
fishing or SEEMING should
be considered nprofitable, and
Judging them from their indulgence
would suppose they fish for living.
Ii they were tied to tree as Gen.
Putnam was and a few Indians pitch
heir t0mahawks, and build a few
Tres around them as they did this
Did general, doubtless they would
quit all their savage, Indian warlike
notions about fishing for a living
and 90 to work. II. p w. in speak
ing of my argument says it falls to
the ground of it's own weight" To
prove that my argument was as
good as his | will refer to an item
in his former. He used the follow
ing language:
eff person sees proper to cut
large tree justice does not step forth
and deny him the privilege Of cut
ting the tree, lest the tree by its
falling should demolish many small
JACCC, anu OlACA III OOAO4 hoAO1 .,
IF farmer has clover and grass
sown on the same piece of land jus
tice does not forbid him pasturing
or using improved machinery in
his clover or grass, but
by so doing would destroy much OF
his grain" Can't you see the in
consistency of his argument? What
does justice step forth and deny the
of cutting the tree for?
Simply because the tree by its fall
ing would damage the under growth.
Damage then is the reason justice
Well, if a person uses i'm
proved machinery in threshing his
grain is he not damagingY Ce<tain-
ly; then Justice forbids as much in
the latter proposition as the former.
SO my argument was as good as his
if not better. His first fell to the
ground of its own weight and mine
on top of it, To close the discus
F.