People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 14, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 September 1894 — Personal. [ARTICLE]

Personal.

Anent my little speech on the Conference floor at Lafayette, the Pilot of last week quotes a paragraph from the Indianapolis Sentinel that places me in a false attitude before the public. The first thing I wish to say, is, that I made no attack upon any political party. My remarks were in opposition to an objectionable substitute for a committee report on temperance. The objectionable feature of the substitute, not to mention its lurid rhetoric, was its evident intent and purpose to commit the Conference in favor of the Prohibition party. My attitude was one of opposition to all partisan de liverances on the subject of prohibition or any other subject, believing them to be out of place, unwise, impolitic, and harmful. The body and soul of my contention was the unwisdom of arraying the Conference with any political party or against any. The bottom principle on which I stood, was. No partisanship in Conference action—nay, not even for the sake of encouraging so good a cause as the Prohibition movement. Apparently the worst sin in the world, according to some of my Prohibition friends, is to vote the Republican ticket; voting with the Democrats is not quite so bad; but, as they assume, no one can ever hope to become a saint until he joins

the Prohibition party. This fallacy has been pushed to the front more than once—in divers ways, and at sundry times and places. Wisely or unwisely I repelled this fallacy with another, in which the scale of party excellence was reversed. Personally I had not been guilty of the sin of voting with the Demoeratic party (though sometimes voting for Democrats), and certainly I should never commit the greater folly of sinning away my day cf grace in the Prohibition parly camp. The one fallacy wi s simply set over against he other, a species of argument that that is perfectly ligitimate, and for which, as it needs none, I make no defense. Tue word “sin” in the relation 1 used it lias seemed offensive only because the remark in which it occurs has been taken as an absolute cr unqualified statement. The fact ought also to be remem tiered, that there was “siu” in the argument I was endeavoring to answer, and so, whether it was the proper thing to use the word or not, somehow it came very handy.

The only, and exclusive, purpose of all I said, was, not to lead an assault upon the D.’ ocratic party, the Prohibition party, or any other party, but to resist the efforts of a determined minorty to place the Conference in what seemed to me a false relation to all the political parties of the day. Not a sentence fell from my lips that was unparliamentary; nor was I called to order by the presiding bishop; nor was any point of order raised against me. All in all, in my opinion, I behaved myself admirably! A word, also, in behalf of my friend, Rev. Allen Lewis. The Sentinel (Indianapolis) reprepresents him as saying “the Democratic party ought to be blown to hell with dynamite.” Mr. Lewis spoke in favor of the policy which I had opposed, and, as l understood him, what he wished to blow up (or down), aside from tne saloon business, was everybody and everything opposed to the most radical Prohibition party declaration. Whatever ho said or meant lo say, he did not use the language attributed to him by the Indianapolis Sentinel; nor did any other party to the discussion use any such expression. Either the Sentinel man was unduly excited or he was misinformed. And further this deponent

saith not.

R. D. UTTER.