Furthermore, in relation to the press, you say that you differ from me in opinion; be it so, the thing after all is only a legal difficulty and the courts I should judge competent to decide on that matter. If our act was illegal we are willing to meet it and although I cannot see the distinction that you draw about the acts of the City <Council> and what difference it could have made in point of fact, law or justice, between the City Council’s acting together or seperate, or how much more legal it would have been for the Municipal Court, who were a part of the City Council, to act seperate, instead of with the Councillors. Yet if it is deemed that we did a wrong, in destroying that press, we refuse not to pay for it, we are desirous to fullfil the law in every particular, and are responsible for our acts. You say that the parties ought to have had a hearing. Had it been a civil suit, this, of course, would have been proper; but there was a flagrant violation of every principle of right; a nuisance; and it was abated on the <same> principle of <that> any noisome stench or putred carcase would have been removed. Our [3 words illegible] fore was to stop the foul noi[s]om[e] filthy sheet, and then the next, in our opinion, would have been to have prosecuted the man for a breach of public decency. And furthermore, again let me say , I sho[all?] look to you for our protection. I [5 words illegible] of going to , If [2 words illegible] Sir, I wish [to go a?]long. I refuse [no?]t to answer any law [p. 41]