ese words has very little regard for
truth, or else he knows very little of the subject he is talking
about. What is he going to do with the evidence of the skillful
physician who attended Mr. Smith, and who upon his first visit
dared not promise that he would ever recover? What is the opinion
of those people who were awakened at dead of night by cries of
murder, and who found Mr. Smith with the marks of the combat
freshly upon him? Why is it that he has not yet fully recovered
from the effects of this assault? And what reason has Fair Play
for doubting the testimony of Mr. Smith himself, even if there
were no other proof? He says, 'One blow from such a weapon as he
exhibits would have crushed his head, as if it were an egg
shell.' Perhaps he has forgotten that circumstances alter cases,
and the position of the victim, the courage of the assailant, and
the direction of the blow might alter this case very much. It is
little wonder that at this point he invokes the aid of the shades
of Ananias and of Munchausen! He next states that while the
public are being prejudiced against the liquor sellers of this
county, 'Kelly is patted on the back, and called a good fellow.'
Would Fair Play wish to be patted in the same way, being retained
in a prison cell, knowing not what punishment may await him?

"We would repeat the question asked, 'What were the detectives
seeking?' But we do not conclude, like Fair Play, that it was the
$1000 reward they were working for, as no such reward was ever
offered. The objects for which these detectives were really
seeking were those men whom Kelly had accused, who, according to
Fair Play, 'were attending to their business,' and perhaps they
were, but if so, they must have had much business abroad. He next
enlarges upon the merits of Eastern township hotels, and among
other things says 'A faithful landlord is expected to furnish
guests certain necessities, one of which may be liquor. And
because he does this, should he be reviled, and prosecuted, and
driven out of his business?' How does this compare with his
former statement that he 'offers nothing in defence of
lawbreakers,' and that 'all good men will applaud the vindication
of the majesty of the law?'

"TRUTH."

In the following