The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1889-06-21
Reply to q. B. Low.
EDITORS COLUMBIAN, DEAR SlRs {:

EDIToRs COLUMBIAN, DEAR SlRs
The next time II. B. Low writes a
piece for publication, l would advise
him to tie small piece of ice on his
head.
He has allowed his temper to gain
full sway over common sense and judg.
ment.
When he wrote reply to Mr.. Derr
and myself Mr.. Low was intoxicated
with passion, which is ten times worse
than to be drunk on liquor. l think
Mr.. Derr was very lenient in compar-
ing him to a boa-constrctor The boa
will not back bite man and is not ca
pable of telling lie. Because he and
Mr.. Derr have got into controversy I
sec no reason why he should abuse me.
He does not contradict my 0ieacs but
vents his spleen on me personally. OF
course we may expect such things from
such men as it is the true spirit and
principle of Prohibition to fight mems
characters. Ignorant. though as he is,
he knows very well that my argument
is based on the Bible and affirmed by
the most able preachers in the United
States, and it will stand before tep
Thousand such men as Fl. B. Low. He
is not worthy the contempt of a gentle
man, and as a farmer, and gentle
man will not stoop to argue with any
man who will resort to such contempt
GUS means as he has. / write this ar
ticle not to enter into any controversy
with ii. B. Low, but to vindicate my
self and some preacher who he attacks
30 Indignantly and falsely. He calls
me preacher, an Irishman, and heaps
abuse upon me without any cause what
ever. He has published as fact, that
which is based, entirely on his oaon
fanatical imagination. He thinks be-
cause man is farmer, he must peces-
sarily be ignorant, and can know very
little about the Bible. What bless
ing it is that the "Holy Book" cannot
De monopolized by street idlers and
fox hunters.
am not preacher, nor a member
of any church. | am an American by
birth, farmer, and resident OF
Columbia county, and any man who
says that preacher wrote or compos-
ed the article headed "a Farmers Re-
ligious Views of Prohibition" is entire.
ly mistaken. He has deliberately mis-
represented when he quoted the sen.
tence, "The mothers of to-day are re-
sponslble for the government Of their
children in the future" The sentence
is this, "The mothers of to-day are re-
sponsible for the government of the
future" Do you see the pointi and is
it not truef Who can tell, what little |
child of to-day will be President of the
United States in the future?
/ presume Mr.. Low judges us all by |
himself The difference between his
first and last article, proves to all his
readers, that it was not the same mind |
that composed them. The first was
perversion of the truth, and the last
was an exposition of Prohibition NAL
ice, ignorance, and falsehood. Mr.. |
Low may grow wiser, as be grows old
er, but it will be by forgetting what he
thinks he knows. 1t is possible that Mr..
Low may have an opportunity to prove
his slander before court of justice.
REPLY TO W. c.
l had almost forgotten Mr.. w. c.,
but thinking he would expect few
words of coincidence, | will simply say,
that he has treated my subject in a
gentlemanly manner, but he has failed
to touch the arguments in my article
For this we cannot blame him, as it is
beyond the power of prohibition to de-
stroy that from which "not jot nor a
little shall ever pass away till all shall
be fulfilled" Mr.. w. @. had better
study his Bible and not be found fight
ng Gods word. You had better har-
less yourself before you start on the
lext trip. Yours, &c,
A FARMER.
With the publication of the above,
his controversy must cease. The cleo
ion is over, and further discussion is
Iseless at this time. Besides this, it
las fallen into personalities, and we
ave no more space TO spare. Mr.. Low
las attacked "a Former, and the lat
er now has replied, and there 1t ends.
EDS.