|
is imperrilled to no slight degree, and such a condition of affairs in our city must awaken the deepest solicitude of all its citizens.
We have said you have failed to apprehend correctly the purport of our communication. If you will kindly re-examine our letter you will find the action of the Meeting was exptessed in three resolutions.
The first, in approval of the work of the Anti Saloon League of I'aryland, and especially with reference to the prosecution of offenders against the liquor laws of the State.
The second,commended Rev. S. E. Nicholson as superintendent of the League.
The third,expressed; FIRST;- Concern at the recent acquittal of Captain Punphrey. SECOND;- Affirmed that the Police Commissioners and all officers serving under them should be avowedly and clearly on the side of the prosecution of law breakers,and urged upon the Commissioners that no man who undertakes to defend and act in sympathy with law breakers is a fit person to be a member of the police force. That is,"great concern" was expressed because of the activity and willing work of Captain Pumphrey in defense of men indicted for violation of law,which did not and does not seem to us,the proper attitude of one charged with the duties of a police officers. In your reply you not only concede the correctness of this position,but as to yourselves say,"The Board feels that in the particular alluded to it has always fully and conscientiously discharged its duty". The question between us at this point is not therefore concerning the principle involved,but its application to the case of Captain Pumphrey who only was named or referred to in our action of December 15th,1902,in this respect. V.'e now call your attention to another and graver item of your answer. You say, the Board begs, however, to say,''That any ministers of the Gospel who uphold in public speech,by resolution or otherwise,men whose characters are utterly disreputable,whose lives have been blackened with all kinds of immorality and bad conduct, who have
|
