Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-01
Rey. L. r. chris,lo's Reply.
Editor Virginian Pilot:

Editor Virginian- Pilot:
L have read In your issue OF the 31st
OF January "A card from The Common
wcalth's Attorney" in which he has
charged me with telling tales out of
school" My first nclinat ton was to
make no reply. for the gentleman has
held himself UP to public ridicule very
much more ehectually than had at
tempted. lie quotes from my Sunday
nights sermon. as reported in the Vir-
ginian- Pilot. iii which I said gam
bier vas Il thief at heart. and proceeds
to make tie following Deductions:
THE logical inference TO bc drawn
thcrefrom is obvious. to-wit: That as
| had been taught to gamble, ergo. that
l had been tau hit TO st al. OF if the
reverend gentleman holds TO u stricter
Interpretation OF the meaning that
had learned gambling in order that
might learn how to steal. and advocat-
cd the teaching of DO. TO sam le"
| have 10 objection to the Common
Weaith's Attorney making the most
stringent personal appi alton Of my
Statement and ann willing to hold to
the "STRiGrEST interpretation" OF
the truth 1 declared that ~, Gambler is
Il thief in his heart" Whether This APP
plies to himself or any other individ-
ual. 1t is true, nor have L any explain
atoms or apologies TO offer for asserting
it,
In my sermon referred TO the Com
in0nwcalth's Attorney rs i'm OFFICIAL
having such Il sympathy With this par
tcular vice gambling as to make him
Incompetent TO prosecute it. 1 still
maintain that the man vino holds that
boys should be tutorcd in The terrible
vi Z has not sufficient moral conviction
TO represent Il Christian Commonwealth
in it's prosecution.
Ii may be well to state the friendly
and private Conversation referred to,
leading UP 10 the Attorneys exhibition
of his -L:old Cure ., WIZ.
regarding Il gambling place then In
court, which lie was supposed to pros
cCutc.
1t was in no sense private CONVEX
sation for have no occasion for closed
coHfcrcnccs with city officials and the
suggestion of supposed secrecy is abso-
lutely absurd. l dcnoun his stand
then and there, and shall exercise my
elective privilege to continue its de-
nunciaton.
lie credits me with having made an
observation which he made himself,
Viz, that the lessons had been taught
were severe tests that not every boy
could withstand."
l say they are tests which NO BOY
can withstand without incalculablc
damage to his moral nature.
The commemorative Attorney, in
closing, after putting himself in n much
worse light before the public than he
was before writing fccbly and gasping-
ly, uses this piece OF sarcasm: II know
that n gambler would have respected n
private conversation about myself and
family and surely 1 had n right to
think DR.. Christie was better than II
gambler"
l wonder how the commemorative
Attorney knows gambler would have
respected n private convcrsat ton with
him? Has lie been taking them into his
confidence? Or does he mean the pub
lie to understand that it is an expert
mental observation? How comes this
intimate and confident acquaintance
with The virtues of the gambling fra
ternity? But it does seem TO us we
have heard IN old adagc that goes,
there is honor gamblers, is
it?'
After all, if correctly reported the
Commonwealth Attorney (Which he
afmiis). why should he complain that
his splendid theory for III, prevention
OF gambling is exposed? Why?
LUTHER X. CHRISTIE.
Norfolk, Va, JAN 81, 1900.