Peninsula Enterprise, June 11, 1887

Untitled

Moral -- Alcohol

MR. EDITOR -- In a letter published in the last issue of the ENTERPRISE over the signature of Accomac, there are so many glaring inconsistencies and so much that is false, that I beg leave to reply to a portion of it. That part of the letter of Accomac, as he styles himself, in which he speaks of "martyrs slain in defence of right against wrong" and of "the baser elements of society armed to the teeth in defence of the saloons" is all sentimental gush. So far as the "mutterings of vengeance" against the good men of the county and the last grand jury, which he alleges, I have only to say, that nothing in my opinion is more absolutely false. They exist only in the diseased imagination of Accomac and the charges are made by him in my opinion, for the vile purpose of deceiving a credulous public. I have made no threats nor has any one else so far as I have heard made any against the members of the last grand jury or against any one who were summoned before them as witnesses. The charges which Accomac makes against the people of Assawaman in calling them assassins too, are worthy of the devilish purposes of the wicked heart from which they originated. We claim to be as law abiding, orderly and morally disposed as any citizens of the Commonwealth and so far as being "armed to the teeth" have to say, that there are fewer guns, pistols and knives in this place than in any place in the county -- our county town not being excepted. We certainly claim to be as moral as one who like Accomac in a coward's castle seeks to strike us a blow in the dark.

In regard to the charge made by Accomac that Bowman Kelly, who testified against Mr. Nock and Mr. Ling, who carried him to court "were attacked on the highway and but for the bravery and pluck displayed by these gentlemen as they faced their cowardly assassins their names might have been added to the list of martyrs," will he be kind enough to tell us in what way they were attacked and by whom? It is true that Mr. William Ailworth and Mr. Ling had some words, but it was about an old feud existing between them, with which no one else meddled and which was settled between them without blows. Ailworth may have [illegible] was a matter between them and to which no one else was a party. So far as the charge made that Kelly was attacked by any one, for the purpose of injuring him, there is not one word of truth in it. It is true that Kelly was stopped but at the time he was expressly told that it was for the sole purpose of asking him a few questions, and that no one wanted to or would hurt him, nor did he believe any one intended to do so -- all of which can be proved by as good citizens as Accomac or any of his allies.

In conclusion, Mr. Editor, have to say that we all know temperance is good cause, but it is to be regretted that its advocates should resort to falsehood to bolster it up and to prejudice a case in court lacking in the testimony which honest jurors will require in order to convict party accused of the offence in the case.

JUSTICE.

Assawaman Hill, June 8th, '87.