Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1891-11-16
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.

the rev James II. O'Donnell by the edi-
tor of the Connecticut Home, reference
to which was made in the DEMOCRAT,
Saturday evening.
To the Editor of the Home:
That you utterly Inexperienced the
purport OF my letter to you of October
81, goes without saying You read nv
letter, after which, pardon me for saw
ing it, you built man of straw, and
| then proceeded to demolish him in the
regular editorial fashion The man
of straw is certainly dead and entombed
beyond any hope of resurrection. I
have no objection to his summary dis
missal from this vale of newspaper
crows" as long as the original is in the
flesh and willing to answer, as best he
| may, questions put to him in the in
terest of truth and prudence.
Entering at once upon the subject, l
| cheerfully accept your invitation to
''clte instances of Incorporate Ian
guage." Moreover, l take the liberty
to say, that, if you are open 10 CON
viction, as | believe you are, you will
readily admit that the proofs which l
will herein submit of my statement that
you DO use Incorporate language, are
perfectly satisfactory to you. And, sir,
my instances" are drawn from the
issue of the Home containing my
letter and your reply. Strange coipci-
dencc, is it not:
Proof 1st In your reply you stated
that the charge of intempe rate language
against the Home is a familiar one
Very good. Now l submit, sir, that you
stand convicted out of your own mouth.
Why is this serious charge so familiar
| to the Home: There must be reasons
for it, surely. When the same STATE
ment is made by many writers not in
| collusiOn, and whose views on other
matters are dramatically Cpl o5ite, there
must be some foundation for it, You
remember the old saw. "Where there is
smoke there is fire Are you prepared
to state, that those of your readers
who make this charge are not IN
telllgent. are incompetent to dstin-
guish between temperate and intemptr-
ate language? Or, will you say, that,
not being in sympathy with your views,
they state what is MOI true? You NAV
rest assured, dear sir, that if the charge
he familiar to the Home there are
abundant reasons for it. Perhaps this
charge Will not he so ''familiar" in the
| future.
Proof 2nd. In short editorial about
"Thirty-nine law defying rum sellers
of Ansonia, you stated that that they
have retained certain representative
| men of this state to defend them in
court. You crown your little note with
these words: Truly rum is a power in
politics" Here, sir, is an unworthy IN
situation. Here is Incorporate Ian
guage. Here is covert abuse of noble
case in AnsOnia connected with politics:
Your meaning is clear. Your words
distinctly convey the meaning that be-
cause these ''rumsellers' are a lover in
politics the legal services of these
gentlemen were given in order to pro-
mote their own political interests.
Again, you would wish, as your words
show, to deprive ''illegal rum sellers of
the right of trial, right guaranteed
them by the constitution; and it is a
right which cannot be toss d aside by
the Will, whim or caprice of any indi-
vidual. Sir, the murder,r caught red
handed in his brutal crime has an I'M
equivocal right to a trial by a jury of
his peers. And red handed murderer is
UNNECESSARILY more heinous crime
than selling liquor without license.
Guilty these Ansonia ''rum sellers may
be; but there is no power in this land
that can deprive them of fair trial.
Therefore, no sneers should be cast upon
the gentlemen whose profession re-
quireS them to defend the accused, for
you know, that before the law a man is
innocent until he is proved guilty.
You owe an apology, sir, to the legal
gentlemen whom you covertly attacked.
Proof Bird. In an editorial at the bot
tom of the first column you stated that
the Bristol Press and the New Haven
Palladium are on the ''rum' side of the
question, merely because these papers
advocate license. If they are advocates
of license they are advocates of
what is unquestionably legitimate. for
you must always bear this truth in
mind, that neither the drinking nor the
selling of liquor is in itself wrong. Then
why apply to their side of the question
the offensive epithet 'rum g. | saw en-
phatically this is something "said that
ought not to be said" The words 'rum
and rumSellers' are chestnuts hoaryi
with age, and will never materially
serve your cause, inasmuch as they are
always ust by men of syour class to
stigmatize the sale and use CT LIQUOR.
Proof 4th. You have another editor
lal about the Hartford county commits
SiOners beng recrcant to their duties in
the matter of issuing licenses this fall. Il
After reading them IA pretty strong lee
ture you conclude by saying that the
system of regulating the tariff by |
col y commissioners is a fraud and a |
humbug." Now l assert, that the terms |
fraud" and "humbug" are not only in |
elegant, coarse and utterly out of place |
i'll an editorial, but are abusive, as YOU
lSuSGs anu my authority |
is the Century dictionary. 1t is simply |
dismissing serious matter by calling
names.
Proof 9Th. AS you may have re-
marked by this time, it is from your
editorials l draw my proofs. There is
still another one. The editorial is
headed The Elections. You stated
that ''the Associated Press seems to sys-
tematically suppress it (the prohibition
vote)." Your words are sufficient in
dication that you believe the Associated
Press does suppress and with malice
prepense the vote of your party; but in
your editorial you managed deftly to
inject the qualifying word' eems," thus
saving yourself from probable legal
difficulties. Nevertheless, your Ian
guage is strong and Incorporate, and
not the product of cool head, for YOU
all but deliberately accuse a great, use
full and time honored institution of
gross violation of duty, and, mind you,
wi Of -. |