The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-11-05
DIR. WOODS STICKS TO IT.

on Rev. DR.. NJ NJ. woods's utterances
at the political rally in opelika last
Sunday evening seems to have stirred
his ire. His reply on this page Is
very heated Under the ordinary rules
Of newspaper ethics The Advertiser
would not be required to give It
space; its tone and attitude are most
discourteous. But we waive our
rights. and let him have full swing.
He terms this papers first comment
"very savage" and IL that was the
case. It was to have been expected that
the venerable man of God would have
set The Advertiser an example Of
charity and sweetness. But he says
II am not built that way" On the
contrary. he Is defiant. with all his
quilts up. His little taste of politics
seems to have transformed this gospel
preacher into the average political
partisan.
AS usual when man loses his COOL
ness. this fighting preacher uses his
weapons wildly. and there Is little
doubt that he will wound himself and
his cause more by his rancorous reply
than he has The Advertiser or anyone
connected with 1t. 1t is a pitiable
spectacle he makes In his attempts at
defense and justification. He has said
the horse was sixteen feet high, and
he tries to prove It.
DIR. Woods throughout his article
maintains primarily two things: first.
that he did not preach a political SER
mon at opelika, and, second. that he
has not slandered The Advertiser, in
the light OF its own statements. He
says he defies any one ito take my
opeiika sermon and find In 1t one
word of politics" He also challenges
any one ito point out a single false
statement or SANDER" in that deliver
ance. He says numerous other things
that could be discussed, but those re-
quire chief attention. rs
It will probably amaze his best
friend to hear him assert that there
was no politics in his opeiika rally
speech. He advocated prohibition.
which is a political issue In Alabama
today. He advocated the amend
ment which is political proposition.
conceived by politicians for political
ends. to be added to a political instru-
ment. He scored the anti amendment
newspapers, which are political in
fluences, for their part in this political
campaign. And in the very paragraph
of his denial, the blinded Doctor says:
Il illustrated my applications Of the
obvious truths Gin his text with the
known facts of the campaign now up
on u.s." What on earth is any campaign.
in which men vote at the polls. but
politics? He and other jealous Chris
tian ministers may not be in 1t for
political ends. but the campaign is a
distinctly political function. directed
in political channels. controlled by POI
iitfcai methods. and aimed az poiiti-
cal results. We trust that Dr. Woods
may get the red blood out OF his eyes.
lay aside his academic spectacles, and
recognize the truth. He took part In
a political rally at opelika on SUM-
day evening. when he might have done
good in his own or some other pulpit.
preaching the old-fashioned gospel of
love and salvation. and winning men
into better living.
DR.. Woods's second main point is
his denial with a show of indigna-
ton. that he made any false statement
or slandered anybody in his rally
speech. And actually he attempts to
Justify his sneers at "the professed
Christian editors" and to prove by
The Advertisers own statements tina.
because he believes its editors ana
owners are receiving $4,000 this year
for whiskey advertisements, he has
not slandered this paper. He proceeds
to emphasize his view by abiding to
his proposition to avoid controversy
with The Advertiser. by a card in
which he would apologize publicly
for having insinuated such a thing"
large receipts from whiskey adver-
tIsing). He considers it "a most. sig
nificant fact that in your very saw
age editorial you did not dare to in
form your readers how much your
whiskey advertisements would bring
you this year."
His whole argument in a few words
is that If The Advertiser has received
large sums of money from the whis-
key advertisers. 1t is a corrupt paper.
and that it's editors are not honest In
fighting the amendment. He begrudg-
ingly admits that there are a few pro-
fessed Christians against the amend
ment who are honest, but evidently
there are very few whom he respects.
Very clearly II he can find any
ground for suspecting the honesty of
professed Christians opposing the
amendment, he is ready to put them
down as dishonest. There is no get
ting around this distinct trend in his