The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-06-04
A DICRESSION,

EDITOR BULLETIN :-PleaSe per-
NIT this digression from the further
answer of Mr.. J. +. Smiths first
letter on Bible intemperance, while
l say few words on side issues.
You had better order up that
"pension" for the great 1889 dis
covery of that plain fact, "that alco-
hello wine caused the first drunk,
the first drunk originated negro
slavery" (Bible proof; "the quar-
rel over negro slavery brought on
the American civil war" Historical
fact). Hence it seems good logical
reasoning, in view of the above facts,
to say, that "drink indirectly caus-
ed the war" Certainly cause is
responsible for all its effects-dis.
prove it who can.
Horner is "Antishamus" so far
as "knighthood" or "canonization"
is concerned; but he may stand in
need of the 'pension" to buy pa
per if he is expected to answer all
the questions propounded to him by
the BULLETINS correspondents, and
defend himself against their person
al attacks. Their questions are
short, but the answers are longer
and more difficult. ga child can
ask questions that may puzzle wise
men to answer" And if the an
swers develop new ideas, it shows
that the world moves, which it would
not do if there were no original
thoughts. My opponents should
take things more calmly and not fly
into a passion and call hard names
when new ideas from an unexpected
quarter upsets their fine spun theo-
ries.
However, my opponents charge
that l don't say anything. Why,
then, are they veNed? Surely my
words don't hurt if there is nothing
in them. So it must be from their
weak cause which they are trying
to maintain before the bar of public
opinion, and the unpalatable and
unanswerable truths that we pre-
sent against it makes them irritable,
and, seeing no way TO defend their
case, they pitch into me. This is
quite encouraging, as it shows
clearly that they truly have a bad
case, and they must have
attended the school of that as,
tute attorney, who being asked by
his pupils, "What shall we do if We
have bad case?" His prompt an
swer was, "Never mention it, but
| pitch into the opposite attorney
pitch into the witnesses, and if tina
don't do, pitch into the Judge, bu
never refer to your case" This
seems TO have been the studied
course pursued by my opponents
with 1 believe the exception o
"Truth," who tried to prove m,
statistics faulty, but he won't writ
it again if we are ever permitted Il
criticise his proof and produce ou
| own.
Again, we are charged with "say
ing the same things over and owe
again" | think if "Antishamus'
will reflect little, he will remembe
that Mr.. G.'s questions related t.
the social, moral and financial phas
of the temperance question, and W
answered according to the tenor o
all his questions. If did repeat
it was because the same proof an
swered to force home the argument
on two or more questions. He wi
also remember that Mr.. j. F. Smit
starts off on what he calls the "re
ligious arguments" of the temper
ance question, and he quotes libel
ally from the Bible to prove his il
temperance doctrines, and it is wit
these we are now dealing and wi
have no need of repeating forme
arguments, as there is an abundano
of material to form an argumer
without repeating.
JNo. M. HoRNER.