Crossville chronicle. [volume] (Crossville, Tenn.) 1894-current, 1915-08-11
CRossvILLE. TENNESSEE. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST II. 1915.

assumed position for us that the ar
tIcle in question does not justify. Ii
that he says we advocate the establish
ment or favor the dance hail.. Nc
where in the article do we use the
words dance hall".
What we did mean and what we now
favor is that young people be allowed
to dance in the private homes when
congregated in invited companies. Be-
cause when you invite people to your
home it is far to assume that you re-
gard them your fit associates. We
would not advocate the public dance
hall because we know that such halls
cannot exclude any person so long as
he conducts himself in quiet and or
derly manner. We would no more ad-
vocate public dance hall than we
would advocate the establishment of a
I low vaudeville show. 1t is we'll under
stood, however, that we do favor a
clean moving picture show such as is
conducted in our town. If Mr.. Horn
should allow his moving picture show
to degenerate into low and rowdy
place, we would oppose 1t with all our
energy until the moral tone was raised
to the point of decency.
Judge Burnett asks if we think min
listers should dance and Sunday school
superintendents should dance and teach
the children or encourage them to
dance? We see no harm that can
come from minister dancing or of any
Suday school superintendent doing the
same, if it be at respectable home
and with respectable people. We know
of minister of and church people who
are just as cd Christians as the peo-
pie of this t. IN who dance and play
cards. That '5 not said with any spirit
of anger or t.srespect but because we
know it to be truth.
We are p. iecgly well aware that
our views on t'lis question will not
meet with IT,, pproval of the church
going people ot this town or most 9TH
er communities. But we feel that the
extreme views advocated by Judge
Burnett and others to be unreasonable
and not conducive to reaching the very
things they are striving after.
We do not wish to be understood as
seeking newspaper controversy or
trying to set up standard IN this COM
munlty in opposition to the church peo-
pie that is antagonistlc to them for the
purpose of appearing independent or
but we do feel that we have |
just as much right to give utterances
to our views as any other person.
Those who do not agree with US SIM
ply disagree, just as We do with with
Judge Burnett, and our divergence of
OPINIONS will IN no wise effect our per-
sonal friendship, if we wish to be right.
feel perfectly sure the conflicting
views of Judge Burnett and the writer
will in no wise interfere with their
friendship.
So far as the Chronicle being critic
zed by the people who read 1t is con-
we have not the slightest objec-
ion, but we do not feel that we must
accept their views of the case, even
though they be in the majority
We trust we may be excused from
lelng considered boastful when we
say: No citizen in this town has stood
more unf1inchingly for the suppression
If the evil in the community than the
writer.
Nor do we wish to be understood as
hanging our position or leaning to-
ward immoral or lawless conduct. We
tand just as we have stood all the time.
What Judge Burnett has said we ac-
ept in the same kindly spirit that 1t is
Intended and we hope all who read our
eply will feel that Judge Burnett can
lot be prompted by any more kindly ;
motives than the writer In what we
ay. We stand ready now and always
o fight lawlessness IN the community
nd shall so remain regardless of what
theirs do, but we must insist on hold {
ng to the views that appeals to US as
onest and fair until we are convinced |
hat we are in error.
SENATRIAL PRIMAR.