It is far from my desire to prolong an unpleasant discussion. I can have nothing but tlie dcepest sympathy with all who by any means whatever are savcd from the curse of drink; and cordial good will towards all who sincercly help theui. Desiring only to aid iu the blessed work of tcmperance, and to bring as niany as possiblc to consider its iniportance, I shall not reply to Rev. Mr. Crozier's pamphlet, In which are many excellent matters; but whieh I must claim does not fairly represent my views, nor draw correct inferences from my statements. But there is a " Report " appended to it, signed by five well-known temperance workers, which, so far as it concerns me, I feel it my duty to correct. I must repeat that I am unchanged in'my devotion to the work of temperanee, unless there is more earnestness and determjjiation than ever to strive for its best interests and to keep it pure. Desiring to prevent any discussion if possible, no word was published until.fierce assaults had been publicly made upon the ministers and churches that could not co-operate with Mr. Conway. It is only in regard to him and nis fitness to lead that there is any real controversy. An honest difference of opinión in regard to the wisdom of the legal measures bestcalculatcd to secure the end desired is no cause for strife. But I must correct the Report signed by my f riends in the following particulars: 1. It remainS tnie Hint. T ncmi' antlinr. - - - V ■ 1.11.1 11V1V1 l I. 1 l. I I 1 ' 1 ' ized the use of my name as a member o the comniittee under whoee auspices Mr C'onway was brought to this city. Ishoulc mostcertainly have refused, and that foi gooil reasons, had I been asked for its use When at Dr. Wilson's office n response te au invitation which it would not havt been courteous to neglect, I expressïy stated to him that I was there only as a Kstener. 2. I took no sucli active part in the meetings as is represented in the "Report.'' I hoped that certain questions could be answered, and was at the first meeting. But it is well known that I feit compelled to refuse to sign the pledge of Mr. Conway or wear his badge, because it would seemingly commit ïne to the support of a man peraonally, in regard to whom there were the gravest doubts. 3. It certainly was not my desire to slander any of the good people of this or any city, in setting forth well known facts in regard to certain temperance speakers whose shameless liyes hare brought only reproacli and disgrace. Ñames too familiar In this city can easily be given, and will readily occur. 4. My refusal to support Mr. Conway was not based solely or mainly, upon his refusing to give any authority for his use of the degree of M. D., or to give any refcrence whatever to his church relations. I consider his attempted justification of that refusal exceedingly poor. Any one reading my first article must have noticed that this was but a sraall part of my charge. It was his refusal to give any ref. erence whatever as to character or responsibility that was a just and suffleient reason for refusing any recogmtion. His friends here do uot claim to know anything of his career or character previous to his unheralded advent in Lowell, Mass. less than a year ago. The gentleman who uruugm mm nere nas loia me túat he knew no more of liis antecedents than dkl I, that the most of the ministers of Lowell could not work with him on account of being unable to get any references whatever; that the physicians there believed him to be a fraud in medicine; that the Y. M. C. A. tried in vain to learn anything about him, and that on acertain occasion he persisted until one o'clock in the morning in liis refusal to answer any of their questions, though their committee pressed him on that point. Mr. Conway told the llev. Mr. Kyder that he had with him recommendations from several Congregational ministers, and then refused to produce one of ttiem. AU these facts were known before my first article was written. 5. I never went to any meeting with any purpose of breaking it up. My only reason for going at all at tue time referred to was that word was brought me that my statements were being called in question. My only intention was to ask the privilege of making a reply if that were done. As that was not attempted I made no eflbrt to speak. Ect. Mr, Ryder ns truc and as carefnl (i man as ever fought for freedom or workcïJfor temperanoc did ask the privilege of raying a word, but was p.mst rammarll.v silenccd. (i. My spceiticeharjres made aainst 4Ir. Conwny's character are disposed of by thc statement that thcy wcrc " prior to or in the crisis ofhis reform." The fact is that th cae inost shaineful oceurrences ere long after he had set himself up as a Christian Teniperance Revivalist, after he had been in pulpit after pulpit of our own and other churches, and in prayer meetinj; after prayer meeting. If adultery and rape after such professions of reform, and such labors in town after town are ouly a " crisis of reform," it is to be hoped that few will be reformed upon that model. I repeat that even yet no account can be gotteii of Mr. Conway from the time he was arraigned in St. Louis, until his recent advent In Lowell. These statements being the plain facts in the case, it seems to me that the good people who unintentionally have misrepresented me, should in the name of fairness withdraw or correct their "Report." Ann Arbor, Dec. 18, 1883.