The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1886-12-24

into the shoes of cap. H." as he is
never "caught mapping" therefore
ought not to enter upon it "under
protest." or insinuate that it would
be "Veyy easy task" TO deny a0haf I
said. / hope his insinuation is base
less. He certainly has no just cause
for such an insinuation.
And now l wish he would kindly
show me wherein l INDUCED in "bun.
CON-" or "evasion" in my last article,
and l will duly apologize, if he will
just inform me why he has so studi
ously avoided answering the question
l proposed to "P. Oh" and which he
felt it privilege" to answer. I re-
peat the question, because, as yet, he
has not touched it," How can
man be a terribly strong prohibition
ist without being in sympathy with
the third party? Seeing that it
is the only party that explicitly de.
clares itself in favor Of prohibition.
All that he has dared to say about it
is: 81 can readily understand how,
from his standpoint, he can ask such
a question:. l am glad he sees that
much, but he does not, and cannot
claim that he has answered it.. l
tried TO open his ewes with regard to
what the question is, by telling him
that he had confounded two types of
anti slavery men, but he SAYS he
didn't that he presented "Myee
types" as my "call was for terribly
strong ones" 4e is mistaken, my
question did not call for any, yet he
has written laboriously and prolixly,
to present ga force of terribly strong
an,i-slavery men of another type
than those in sympathy with the Re-
publican party" Now suppose he
has done it, what then? Does this
prove how Mr.. French can be ga ter
ribly strong Prohibitionist," as "P.
H." says ne IS. "wlthout being in
sympathy with the third party?"
H0ao it does 1t, Mr.. French does not
say. Where is the analogy? The
terribly strong" anti slavery men of
1856, that were not OF the Republi
can type, and whom he "bas pre-
sented," were not in the old parties,
but outside of them. The Gerrit
Smith type and "Garrison-Philips"
type, had broken away from the old
parties, has Mr.. Ere, ch, and the
class of Prohibitionists he represents,
broken away from the old whiskey
and beer parties2 If not, the analo-
gy fails at an essential point. There
were anti-slavery men in the "old |
parties of compromise, but they were |
medk ones, as they were not strong
enough to break the bonds of party. |
ism, but walked side by side with |
pro-slavery men to the ballot box,
and voted to compromise with the |
scum of all villainies." And so there
are Prohibitionists in the old parties
of 1886, but they are yeak ones,
they had not strength enough last
November to break away from the
bonds of partyism. but walked side
by side with saloonists to the ballot
box, and voted to compromise with
The sworn foe, the cruel and relent.
less enemy of our republic. Such
forbids their classification
with "terribly strong" Prohibition.
SITS. "P. H." goes it :blindly,"
when he calls such a man as Mr..
French ga terribly strong Prohibi
ionIst," and Mr.. French goes it
'blIndly" when he makes a desper.
tie effort to put himself, and his ilk
If Prohibitionists, into the same
:ategory with the terribly strong"
Inti slavery men Of 1886. Men who
ire not strong enough to vote with
'arty that represents the principle
hey profess to believe, but vote with
parties of compromise" cannot
ustly claim to be "teiribly strong"
'rohibitionists. Will Mr.. French
how how they can, for that is the
question which he regarded ga
to answer, but for reasons
est known to himself, devoted two.
birds of his two articles TO a mere
1t cannot be that he
'as "caught mapping" as he must
now the difference between an ex.
lamation and an interrogation.
Again, has Mr.. French proved
nat the terribly strong" anti slavery
len of 1886 who had broken away
'om the old pro slavery parties,
ere "not in sympathy" with the
republican party3 think not. OF
purse they did not vote with it, but
as there nothing in that young e
arty that challenged their "sympa G
,y?"-nothing in its principles,
oirit and aims? Can it be that
lose grand leaders in the abolition
rmy were so narrow and contracted
their sympathy" that they did c
OF allow bit of it to move toward
le little, heroic Republican party?
o not and cannot believe they were