The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-03-19
SAM CIPRIANO STICKS BY HIS GUNS IN ANSWER TO
 'SEMPER FIDELIS'
Waterbury, Conn. March IS, 1940.

Waterbury, Conn.
 March IS, 1940.
 Editor of The Democrat:
 I am taking this opportunity to convey my sincere appreciation to The Waterbury Democrat for pub fishing this letter and the letters in defense of Walter Winchells col- umn appearing on the editorial page of this honorable newspaper during the past few weeks. There are many of us human beings who try to be intelligent despite the fact that our theories are repudiated and dragged beneath the depths of ignorance and ridiculed because our criticisms are not justified and labeled as a smear When I was supposed to have defended" Walter Winchell, an imaginative letter writer des- cribed it as sentimental rot" and went on to say. it afforded me an opportunity to smear an outstand- ing clergyman. I have tried to be intelligent and naturally, Coughlin- ties will retaliate with the remark that I have not tried hard enough. In an effort to reach definite con- clusion on controversial issues with out ihjuring the feelings of Cough linites, have tried to limit my cr1- ticisms to the issue in question. l have discovered it impossible to cri- ticise Father Coughhn's theories without being labeled a "Tyrant," "Windbag,," and 8 Communist" l have been disparaged despite the fact that 7 have practised methods prescribed and practiSed by many persons who have embodied inteln- gence with common sense in an ef- fort to arrive at a reasonable con- clusion of theories based on contro- versial subjects. In forming an opin- ion I apply the same system as thousands of Americans. I form my opinions by reading material pro and con, with 8 neutral mind. An tagonism is thrown out of the win dow when take it upon myself tc study the subject thoroughly with out favoring the opposing factions because of nationality or religion. agree with Semper Fidelis, when he stated in his Cor her) letter dated March 3, 1940, that my defense oi Winchen afforded me a chance tc smear" Father Coughlin. As stated previously, I have been criti- cised as attempting to smear. Il smear is the word they want to ap- ply, 1t is their privilege. But 1t can- not be concluded that it is the prac- tical word despite the fact that it is applied to the description of criti- cism.
 If Semper Fidelis is familiar with The Democrats editorial page, he must have recognized that the per- sons who have lauded Winchell praised him in defense due to the criticism his column had been sub- jected to. It may have been "senti- mental rot" to defend Wincheli but I did so because his critics did mol offer a single issue or @ definite argument as to why his columf should not appear in the Democrat Had they complained about the re. marks MT. Winchell had said con. cerning the seventeen indicted members of the Christian Front, thu outcome or conclusion of the argu' ment would have been entirely dif' ferent. They had right to protest but they insinuated that Winchelli column was nauseous from stem tt stern, and emphasized that it should be replaced. My defense of Win cheil was based on sincere know. ledge that it was . protest Of ignO'