The Calumet News

WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK

Subscribers Are Invited to Contribute to this Column. A communication should be signed by the writer's own name, not necessarily for publication, but as evidence of good faith.

Houghton, Mich., Aug. 7. 1914.

Editor News;- I wish to reply to all my critics, as far as time and space will allow, and I also have some further phases of the Sunday question to present. but as Mr. Broome is one of the men to whom my article was addressed. I feel that I should reply to him first, and set him right on one or two points. I had hoped some of my questions would be taken up in the manner I requested. but I fail to see where he has touched upon even one point. Some of his insinuations are so unwarranted that they border on the ridiculous to those who know my political faith, and who have read my letters with any thought. Even if my sympathies were with the "Reds" or socialism of any sort (which they certainly are not) that would not make any difference in this controversy. The "Reds" may or may not favor liberal Sunday laws, but I know a great many good citizens who do. and I want to have more of the better class take an interest in the question. That is one reason I am writing these articles, in order that they may not be misled into believing It is only a criminal class who favor them.

One paragraph I will take up as representative of his reply to my article: "All who want to be a law unto themselves, who have set forth such socialistic arguments against the laws that have been enacted by the representatives of a free people, prove that they are not patriots and are associated with the criminal class because all true patriots obey all the laws of any state and are always thankful to any officials that call their attention to laws that have been ignorantly broken by them."

In the first place I have never encouraged law-breaking. and in the article he is criticising. I plainly said: "We believe in law and order, and wish to modify or have repealed the unfair ones." In an article printed in another paper several days ago, I said: "I do not criticise the enforcement of the laws. but I criticise those responsible for the unjust ones, and my object is to call attention to them to the end they may be modified or repealed and that no more obnoxious ones be slipped over under the guise of morality."

Is it fair to assume that such sentiment should drive a man "where they serve each other on the bill of fare?" And are all of those who have in the past argued against unsatisfactory laws, and in hundreds of cases had them repealed, are they all pals of criminals and lacking in patriotism? And if we are a "free people" have we not the right to suggest changes without being branded undesirable citizens? In a certain state among the "blue laws" and Sunday laws (enacted about the same time by the same kind of people) we find: "No food or lodging shall be afforded a Quaker. Adamite or other Heretic." Again: "No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath." Also: "Suffer not a witch to live." and the latter had the same backing that the Sunday law has. Were the men who repealed these laws also "Reds"? One more explanation: I do not claim to be "the leader of this minority" to which he refers, and I am writing on "my own hook" without suggestions from anybody. I have no nuts to crack either. and to avoid further explanations will quote from an article printed several days ago: "I have never had. have not now and never expect to have any interest, directly or indirectly. with any Sunday "money making schemes."

All I ask is an intelligent discussion of the question. and I shall not take any notice of the back-handed compliments I receive. as my argument is not affected one particle whether I am a "scandal monger" or full of "conceit." - Fair Play.