Press enter after choosing selection

Will You Permit Me To Say That In The Remarks

Will You Permit Me To Say That In The Remarks image
Parent Issue
Day
13
Month
July
Year
1860
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

Ma. Ecitok: in your is.ue of tbc 6th insc, on tlio proceeu ings of the City Council of the 3d inst., you hare done me and the other meinbers of tha Board who volod ngainst the 80 called Sundsy Law, injustice, in not stating tbe reasous giren by myself and other mcmbers of the Board for our Toto on that occasion. You aro probably aware, Mr. Editor, tbat there is in this city a secret organization of the dark-luutern order, a society whoso organïe law (as I ui informed) prohibiU all religiou, poliiical, commercial, and social intercourse with any cmteide the mystic circle, and whose acts, whatsoever may be their motives, re creating strife and discord among tho community. Mr. Editor, I neod not inform you that this Sunday Law emanated from his society, and that tho petition to the Board was presented by Donald Mclntyre, who stated that he had the honor of being chairmsn of this Holy Alliance. Tfèw, ir, the injustic9 complained of, is that you did not state in your article the reaeon given by rue and tho other memb-rs of the Board in opposing the measure, which tras that the statute laws covered all the groundsof complaint made by the petitionrs, and as a consequence all further lcgislation was unnecessary, a fact wliich a reference to the statute will convinoe any ciudiü man And, Mr. Editor, permit me to add, that ■while I am at all times ever willing to pay due and proper respect to the opinions, both religious and social, of my fellow-citizens, I do not feel bound to pander to the intolurance of superstition a ad bigotry. Rtspoctfully yours, BICHARD HOOPER, Aldcrman of 4th Ward. 1ÍOIB. - We designed no injusücs to MrHoopkb or bil associates i the vote, in the artiole refeired to. It simply stated results ■without alluding to the reasons governing the Totes of inembers foror agninst the ordinance; and had we stated the views of Mr. H. as qo the sufficiency of existing statutes, we should have found it nece6sary to state that the nu merou petitioner, ïncluding sound lawyers, and ihé Aldermen who disagreed with hitn' ragarded the ststutes as insufficient to meet the eae. As to the secret society alluded to, we know nothing. Wesupposed it a public erganization, and have to ki.owledge of its ocial or business proscriptions. With this explauation we cheerfully give place to the ommunication of Mr. Hoorm. Our own fiews are understood, and we need not stute er dofend them her?.