Blue-grass blade., 1895-08-04
MY ANSWE
To the Two Shaws in the 'lndependeni
Pulpit" an infideI Anti-Prohibition
Magazine.

from the Independent Pulpit, an In6del
magazine, two editorials, written by its
two editors, J. d. Shaw and J. T. Shaw,
father and son, that are as abusive of me
as my bitterest enemy, whether he be
preacher or saloon keeper, could wish.
ask that those two editorials may be
carefully read before this is read.
To observe the rule business before
pleasure" take the advertisement of
the Independent Pulpit out of the Blade.
and demand that the advertisement of
the Blade be taken out of the Pulpit.
In both of the articles of these two
editors there is only one attempt at an
argument made. The balance is personal
defamation of me most inconsistency
mixed up with very high praise of me.
The attempt at an argument to which
I allude is that having understood that
the Independent Pulpit was not in favor
of Prohibition nevertheless proposed to
exchange advertisements with it.
That understood that the Pulpit was
not for Prohibition is evident from tie
fact that keep constantly printed at the
head of my paper that it is "The only
Prohibition paper published by Heath
en-, &bst that the Pulpit was paper-that
took special pains to oppose Prohibition
I did not know until ! read the article
written by "the boy" with the endorse
ment of his father, that is just such an
article as the lowest Irish Catholic sa-
loon keeper in the land would love to
see, and that the Chicago Champion, the
biggest liquor paper in the United
States, that prints Bible motto at its
head, would love to publish.
That Editor Shaw, the elder, was
man who was so opposed to Prohibition
that he was willing to "vote and speak
against Prohibition" as he now says he
does, was something that I did not at
first understand, and which now under
standing withdraw my endorsement of
him. Twill not be a party to the circu-
lation of any literature that l do not
though my life and labor show my op-
position to the Bible and religion, will
not affiliate with any man who encour-
ages what his son calls "great and
growing evil" the "liquor traffic." and
"brands" as such, when he, the father,
"votes and speaks against" the only ef-
fort that is being made to stop that
"great and growing evil"
All of Editor Shaw's talk-I mean the
father-about his devotion TO temper
ahce" is simply bosh. He says "the on
ly kind of Prohibition that we are in ia
vor of is for every man to prohibit him
self-that is from drinking to excess.
We practice that kind of Prohibition"
That is exactly the same argument
that saloon keepers and distillers and
preachers who vote against Prohibition
all make.
Resolutions in favor of temperance"
are frequently passed by organizations
of liquor dealers, and by churches that
are opposed to Prohibition, and these
resolutions of the liquor dealers and
those of the churches are SO absolutely
identical in words and sentiment that
you could not tell one from the other
except that one set of these resolutions
explain that they were passed by body
of church people and the other set ex-
plains that they we're passed by body
of liquor dealers.
You may read any newspaper publish
ed in the interest of the liquor trade
that you can find, and you will see that
it never has anything to say against the
church or against the man who "prohib-
its himself" and only warns people not
to "drink to excess" as Editor Shaw and
the New Testament Scriptures do. Ed
itor Shaw agrees perfectly with Paul
that you may take little for your
stomach's sake" and yet ON the other
point Editor Shaw will not hesitate to
vilify Paul just as he does me. But you
will find that the only string on the
harp of the liquor paper is one that is
continually twanging against Prohibition
and it does this because it knows that
the Prohibitionist is the only man who