The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-06-14
BROTHER DlXON'S DEFENCE.
COZ. LN0ERsoLB WILL HAVE TO 90
TO TRIAL ON THESE IssUEA

TIE Parsons Jussiac.tioa OF His Attack
Upon the Inadeps Moral Character Len
In As Relevant by Justice Lawrence.
The motion Of Col. Robert @. Ineersoll to
strike out three Of tho defences OF tho Rev.
AMI c. Dixon OF the Hanson Place Baptist
Church OF Brooklyn. in the Coloners action
to recover 5000 from him for alleged libel.
has been denied by Justice Lawrence OF the
Supreme Court Tho action Is brought to
recover damages for these alleged libelous
words:
1nHdeity fosters impure literature. Afsw years ago
II was found that pictures AID impure publications
were passing through the malls. Anthony Comstock
decided to stopit on investigation whom should he
md representing publishers Of impure literature but
Col 1ngerso paid to pollue the minds Of tho young
OF this generation.
In his first defence Mr.. Dixon admits respon-
sibility for tho language. and pleads It's truth
In justification. He then makes three alleged
defences which Col. Ingersoll held were ir-
relevant and not proper subjects for defence
In the action.
In the first Of these Objectionable defences
the defendant sets forth that In February.
1873. Col. Ingersoll. as Chairman OF q commit
tee. presented petition to Congress for the
repeal OF sections l.7s5. 1878. 3,So3. $3.50.
and 2.491 OF the u. 8. Revised Statutes. which
In part prohibits the transmission Of obscene
literature and other articles through the
mails. The petition contained about 10000
names and was 2.100 feet long. Tho Society
for the Suppression Of Vice appeared against
me eamed also n ss defence that Col In
gersoll addressed a convention Of the National
Liberal League at Cincinnati in September:
was one of those to issue the following card:
rs. as for free IL and FREE Lana
which must be ured by secular republican enamel
patton from church domination.
It is also averred in this regard that when
D. NJ. Bennett was convicted In this city for
violation Of these laws in a!paper he pub llshed.
that COL Ingersoll offered resolutions Of sym:
norSnt zeal. lie had $50 petitohed tho Pres
In the next defence j. is stated that in 1882
book wns Issued at Chicago entitled Think
ss Flint wh soS San Mnt
IL. D. Col; InGerso! wrote an introdnction
to the book in which he # and
original thought;:, will hasten the coming OF
Mr.. Dixon says that in commencing this
book Col. InRersoll must be responsible for
the following propositions which tho author
g.; : .:s. M sssE::
Mr.. Dixon also holds Col. Ingersoll RESPONSE
Book Sts i0r this statement OF the author In the
30. the laws forbidding unchastty were framed by
those who in the earlier periods OF civilization could
.ord to own for ne ton OF u Their prop
win be observed that in the Jewish Decalogue
the rule, Thou shall not covet thy neighbours
wife" Is introductory to tho kindred rule. nor
h hi Ii. @ and ss' Is ,Gs
wife in question is more regarded assumed to
exist than that of the does the Decnogue for
bid a woman to covet her neighbor's husband. Tho
nness OF the existing is not considered. Chas-
ti,y begins tn ereforr element tho law OF tho
strong Tor the government Of tho weak. concerning
property
In the last defence to which Col. Ingersoll
objected Mr.. Dixon says:
For years has been making for pay and otherwise
speeches and writing books and pamphlets attacking
Christianity in which be has basphemed God, denied
the the Bible and sought to weake the
sanctity and authority of the moral law.
Mr.. Dixon says that Col. InGersol's conduct
in these respects goes to pollute the minds OF
the yOunp.