Evening journal., 1913-09-27
REV. DR.. MORGAN SENDS
REPLY TO THE LAWYERS

Ul- chciI ana 20 ms interest. plaNtu ln /
the attorneys custody arc very differ
ent from what YOU indicate yours 80 be /
when you drag this case cut and cause I
it 10 be brought into public review again.
Now, Mr. Hastings, with such scatter
ing a. this by your unruly pen, do vui
think could be concerned even little
broad on the main question as issue he
tween ne?
Did Not Refer TO Court.
You begin for the first time in your
letter 10 talk ike q lawyer when YOU
raise he question of motive lying back
of the writing of my letter; and NJ
nounce your deductions But stil again
you are wide of the mark in your con
clusior. Nou fluid the motive, according
10 vour statement. in the sentence in my
letter. ~ tremble while ! await the de-
csicn OF the court " ctc. and confidently
aver that my motive is 10 influence the
court IN their decision. now and here
publicly declare that I never once gave
this that YOU suggest a thought | per
sonallv know quito well nearly all the
gentlemen Of om Delaware court One
% them ! PLAYED with in my boyhood,
studied with 40 school, slert with in his
and my parental homes. and loved him
and love him 10 this day rs a brother.
I There is no one in this state that has
higher regard for the personal char
acter of the gentlemen Of our court and
for their intellectual equipment for their
task than I have I attribute 10 them
capahilitv and conscientious purpose IN
! their public acts and that their conclu
sion in this case when reached viii he
based on their own scrutiny Of the laws
and principles involved Away from this
course of procedure on their part and
from this outcome. I have no thought
that vou. with whatever skill of argu
mcnt YOU presented your side of the
ease before Tho court, or IN your recent
added plea IN your letter to me. could or
can deAect these gentlemen in the least
degree.
Now will frankly tell you and
ANY other one of my readers who has
not excelled you in enough aptitude
to discern it, what my motive in Writ
ling the former letter, and for that
matter this one. really is.
There are at least two reasons for
this. and in these two reasons you
may find the motive. (1l | know II
the courts decision should be favor
liable TO your contention in the case
pending that my native county. Sus-
sex. and the adjoining county, Kent,
viii be flooded and cursed again with
THE product of the brewery and the
distillery; and too against the Will
and voice Of the people that ] am
proud TO own as my people t2l J
want to do my little part toward slim
lulating you gentlemen II I may, and
other gentlemen Of your fraternity OF
like personal character who may read
this agitation TO see. as many minis
ters and laymcn, including some OF
your legal brethren. do see, that there
is abundant professional work for you
and them better suited to your per
sonal and professional standing In So
Iciety, and that will have better results
/ than to represent liquor interests in
, this age of current revolving con-
science against this nefarous traffic
I'm all its ways and works and against
/, the whole breed OF its supporters and
= lapologists. as sch; and in this effort
= of mine. let II be understood. that
i voice the attitude of a multitude o
4 good people OF this city and Of othc
: parts OF the State.
Defending Thief Not Parallel.
> have meant 10 say Of your let
, ter. Mr. Ward that beside the beau
s tiful spirit It exhibits, Il is an abl'
D and learned treatment of the mattel
q in hand: and 7 cannot and shall no
. attempt to deal with the main ques
ton in our controversy as trained
q lawyer is ablo 10 do
e There is a difference to be note,
Q between an attorneys defending as
v counsel a murder or thief, and hi,
n taking service for people in tho
!, liquor trafice This business makes
: for so many crimes and evils Of al.
4 most every sort and grade that would
3 not otherwise he. and 10 has come
s to be in our present day estimate
. so disreputahle. The point I here
r make is this: That such defense o
Q murderer or thief is an isolated
- case. You take as attorney in tha
case what you find already existing
and that according to custom of al
civilized countries has such represen'
e tation before the court. But wher
you. as counsel represent the liquor
I interests for purposes either Of con
tinuing or extending their trade. y
makes you a participant as counse
, I'm what follows your success.
2 believe that Christian men. even law
J yers. cannot afford 10 take this roll
and this responsibility
! Asks About Test fo Law.
According TO the account Of th'
case given by YOU gentlemen II
e your letters. there are really two
, phases of the task undertaken b,
, YOU. One is the defense OF maI
y in the cheap employ of carrying in
toxicating liquors for beverage pur
a poses into dry" territory. and charg
: ed in so doing with violating thu
D Hazel law. remember. however
y Mr. Hastings. that before this viola
: tion Of the Hazel law was publicly
known 10 have happened. you were
. reported I'm the newspapers 70 have
E given notice in the court sitting "
Dover that YOU we're going 10 tes
2 the constitutionality Of that law
y have wondered il you we're behin'
= the scenes in any way and had an
: / knowledge beforehand that this VIC
2 lation Of the law was going 10 hap
pen. and that. when II did hsppel
was made the basis of the test cas-
: instituted by YOU in the session o
Z the court at Georgetown 7 wonde
= II the attorney general we're 10 tel
q what he knows. II his statemen
: would not confirm this initiates
): theory Of mine How about IT, MI
= Hastings?
? Your case. II my surmise as abov
, intimated has any warrant Is moi
q principallv as to your object, to de
fend Grier. but to overthrow. II yo
can on the plea Of unconstitution