Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-01-31
REPLY
by Rev. Dryden to the Late Sermon by
Rev. Ulfert.

by Rev. Dryden to the Late Sermon 10y
Rev. UIfert.
To ne Editor Of The RegiSt1:
SIR: There appeared i'll the West Jirginio
Ntitmg, a German paper OF this city, Oh
the 10Th inst, an article written by thu
Rev. Mr.. Ulfert, to which we desire TO re-
ply through your columns. In this article
the reverend gentleman calls the attention
of the public to the mass temperance
meeting held at tue Capitol rink on the
l2th, and acuses the temperance people o.
this city Of resorting to fraud II mIsrep
resentatiOn in order to advance their cause
We reply through your columns for two
reasons: First, to deny the false charges
made by our worthy divine; and secondly,
TO inform the English reading portion o.
our community Of the tactics that are be
ing used by the enemy to defeat the tenn
perance forces OF this State in the coming
campaign.
And fret, the reverend gentleman would
emphasize The fact that this movement wa
set on foot by the English ministers" OF
this city and is, therefore, to be looked
upon with suspicion. In referring to the
call that was signed by the pastors of the
several churches he Gays: THE English
ministers OF this city called q prohibition
meeting on the 10Th inst, as yOu all know,
and among the INIT signed to the call
WAS the name of DR.. Sessler, which aston
ished every one who knew him. And
have a letter before me from DR.. Sessler
denying that he ever signed the call"
And then he asks the question, How does
this compare with the principles OF these
pious gentlemen who want to lead the peo-
pie OF Wheeling in the work Of reform"
By this statement the gentleman would
have it appear that DR.. Sessler's name was
a forgery and that the ministers were the
guilty parties. In reply to this wholesale,
impudent and cowardly attack / have this
to say: The writer, as a member OF the
committee appointed for that purpose, cir
culated the paper and received the sigma
lures, and DR.. Sessler signed the paper
cheertully when it was presented. And
when ! learned that Rev. Ulfert bad a let
ter from DR.. Sessler denying his signature,
l called on the gentleman and asked to
see it. He brought out the letter and upon
reading / found that the doctor had been
misrepresented. He stated positively in
that letter that he did sign the call for
the meeting on the 10Th.
And we shall not stop here to inquire
into the DOCTORS reason for 80 doing, or
take note of any explanation he may make
to others. His motive is not the question
we are now considering; but it ia to be
presumed that it wa q worthy motive.
Mr.. Ulfert says that the letter denies his
signingihis name. 1t does no such thing, but
afirms the contrary. And it turns out
that the gentleman who raised the cry of
fraud has done the doctor q great iDjus-
tice, and has sought by misrepresentation to
make q wrong impression upon the minds
of the intelligent people of this commu-
nifty.
II turns out that a man who has assumed
the honors of the ministerial Office, who
stands in one of the pulpits Of this city as
a preacher Of the gospel and q teacher Of
morality, in order to advance the interests
of an ubiquitous business and protect an
institution that lives upon the vices Of the
people, has dared to call in question the