Facts Which Should be Known.
By Editor
In the Voice of the West, the review of "Both Sides," by Eld. Preble, is being published. As the articles began to appear, we saw that matters were being set forth in a very wrong light, and addressed a short note to Eld. Himes correcting some misrepresentations. This was published. Other things immediately appeared no less demanding correction. We accordingly addressed another note to Eld. H. for publication, designing to trouble him no more in the matter, if he would let his readers know where "Both Sides" could be obtained, that they might if they wished, examine it for themselves. With that work in the hands of the reader, we are willing to leave it with him to correct all the misstatements or misrepresentations that Eld. P., may make. As several weeks elapsed, and this latter note did not appear in the Voice, we wrote again to Eld. H. stating that we were not particular about the publication of our second letter, but as Eld. P. was continually calling upon his readers to "see Both Sides," and as we heartily joined in the request, we would like to have him simply give notice that "Both Sides on the Sabbath question could be had by addressing Eld. James White, Battle Creek, Mich. Price 20c. postage 4c." To this note we have received the following particularly curt reply: "Eld. Smith: Yours of the 5th is at hand. I thought that 'justice' required me to publish your first letter. I do not think it requires me to publish your second letter, or to advertise for you. I am respectfully yours. J. V. HIMES, by W. L. R." The reader is requested to weigh well these facts. Eld. H. is publishing a review of Both Sides in his paper. But he has never given his readers an intimation of where "Both Sides" could be obtained, should they desire to examine it for themselves. And in answer to a direct request from us, that he would give such notice, he refuses to publish it. Addressing us, he says "I do not think it [justice] requires me . . . to advertise for you." How is this? Why does he call it advertising for us? Both Sides contains Eld. P.'s articles on the Sabbath question entire. We claim, and every candid person will admit, that in circulating that work, we are circulating their side of the question, just as much as ours. Why then does Eld. H. call it advertising for us? Is he afraid to have their side of the question appear, when ours is presented in connection? We can assure them that we are willing to circulate their side of the question, if ours can appear in connection. Then, again, he is giving to his readers a review of Both Sides. Is he fearful that Eld. P. will not be able to meet its arguments, that he is unwilling to have his readers see it? Were we reviewing a work, if we designed to do by it any sort of justice, we should not hesitate to let the reader know where he could obtain the work, nor should we object to his comparing it with the review. Eld. P. claims that our review of his articles as published in Both Sides, contains several hundred misrepresentations; misrepresentations of himself, Webster, Greenfield, Paul, &c. But his articles are given entire in connection with our review, and cannot the reader see these misrepresentations and perversions, if they exist? Then why not let them see it, that their just indignation may fall upon our guilty head? If their position be correct, in no way could they advance their cause so much. Why then, all this fear? Why these efforts to keep Both Sides away from the people. By doing this they virtually say, either that they consider the people universal blockheads, or that there is no truth in their assertion that the question is not fairly represented in that book. From the circumstances in the case, we feel warranted in saying that they dare not let both sides appear. They know that their strength lies in suppressing our side of the question, and keeping the people in darkness concerning it. In darkness they put their trust, not in the light. But do they think they can navigate a position which is supported by darkness, safely through this age of inquiry and investigation? As Owen Lovejoy once said in Congress in regard to slavery, "They might as well try to navigate an iceberg through the torrid zone." All we want is, that both sides of the Sabbath question should be set fairly and fully before the people. The Sabbath is not only a truth in itself, but it is a prophetic truth; and it is just as certain that the subject will be agitated, and the light spread on this question in those days, as it is that mighty kingdoms have arisen and fallen as the prophets have declared. We have confidence in our position. Men may put forth their futile efforts to arrest the truth; but in the great God who is the author of the Sabbath, and in Jesus Christ who is its Lord—Lord both of the Sabbath and of us, put we our trust.