Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-02-04
THE TEMPERANCE DISCUSSION.
Rev. MIR. Dryden Makes a Reioinder to
Rev, Mr.. Ulfert.

Rev. MIR. Dryden lakes a Reioinder to
Rev. Mr.. Ulfert.
To The Editor Of the Register:
SIR desire to speak again through
your columns in reply TO the reioinder OF
Rev. Mr.. UlGert which appeared in The
REGIsrER of the lst inst. Aud first l
call attention tn the CATION OF that ar
ticle which is calculated to make a wrong
impression on the public. Whether this
was anauged by the editor, or MIR. Ultert
himself, it is in perfect keeping with the
spirit of the entire article. 1t is this: "A
Reply by Rev. VIM. Ulfert TO the 4tigck
of Rcr. Drydea." This, together with
other portions Ofthe article, would make
the impression that in this controversy !
am the aggressor and my worthy brother
or step. brother, as lie would have it, is
on tic defensive. Now this is not the case,
butthe contrary, and l ask the public to
take note Of this tdct do not intend at
this point in the discussion to exchange
places with the worthy brother however
much he may desire it. | demand that he
stand lust where he has placed himself, let
the consequences he what they may. My
opponent fred the FIRST gun aud / returned
the fire. / was On the defensive then, !
am on the deJcRsire ROC, and upon this
basis l shall proceed.
In nv first article / called tine attention
of the public to this statement made by
Mr.. Ultert in the IeitWRg Of the 10Th uit:
II give the literal translation i'll English,
The English ministers OF this city called
-zL.As,.. -. antsny. IN tha 1Ofh incl "a
you all know, and among the names signed
to the call was the name Of Dc. Sessler,
which astOuished everyone who knew him,
and | have a letter before Inc from DR.. s.
denyiug that he ever signed the call. "
Then he asks: "How does this compare
uih the principles Of these piOus gentlemen
who want to iedd the people Of Wheeling IN the
rork Of REFORM" In answer to his cow-
ardly insinuation | said that "Dr. Sessler
in his letter acknowledges signing that
call, ami that Mr.. Ilfert by m%isrepresen-
tation had made a wrong impres.ion ppon
the minds of the intelligent people Of thiG
community" And this / now reGgfrn.
In the letter given to the public by Mr..
Ulfert, Dr. Sessler says, referring to the
call OF the 18th, ''1hdt call I cheertaiiy
signei." Now tbs is The point IN question,
and I shall not stop, as stated in my for
mer article, TO inquire into his motive or
consider any explanation he hay make to
others a. to Thy he did Il
But our opponent says: Il NEVER
WROTE that DR.. Sessler denied having
signed that call for the l2th inst Then
why did he INTIMATE that Dr.. Seasler's
name was a FORGERY and that the minis
tiers Of this city were the guilty parties?
For the benSGt CT I'll Concerned VIC give
here the call As it appeared IL lie pagspa-
pers Of this city on the 9th ult, 1t is a.
follows.
la view Of the fact that a Constitution
al Amendment, prohibiting the manufac-
ture aud sale of spirituous and malt
liquors % a beverage within the limits of
West Virginia, has been submitted to the
voters OF the State, for ratification or re-
lection, Sad will be passed upon in the
month Of November, 1883; and believin
that all persons who favor morality, So
briefly, education, religion and ideal citi-
zenship will support said amendment at
the polls; and believing further, that no
effective or substantial work csn be sue
cessfully lone without organization, we
therefore favor holding a public mass
meeting at the Capitol Rink on the 18th
day of January, in the city OF Wheeling,
for the purpose OF orglnizinga non.denom-
national, non-psrtisan movement that will
bring together on a COMMON platform all
our citizens who favor the ratification of
said amendment. And we whose names
are hereto appended issue such call for the
day and at the place aforesaid, and We beg
all good citizens to consider this great
question and attend said meeting"
Now this was the call signed by the
ministers of this city, and by DR.. Sessler
among the rest. And l have before me
the original manuscript with DR.. Sessler's
name sigued in his OCR hand %,rritiRg, and
any one who desires can call on me and see
for himself. But my good brother says, ~
never wrote in my article that DR.. Sessler
denied having signed the call for the 18th,
but that he wrote to ssy he had never
given his name for a Prohibition meetins."
And then he asks, WAS l not compelled
by DR.. Sessler's letter to suppose that two
calls were presented to him?" DR.. Sessler
knew that there Was but one call made for
q temperance meeting on the 18th, and 80
did Mr.. Ulfert know it, for it was present
ed to him and he refused to sign it. Aud
l desire to say further, that Mr.. Ulfert
said to me in his own house, in the pres