Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-06-04
The bloomington Herald, Indiana
Journal, Ex-Governor bigger and
Governor WIifcOmb.


Governor WbifcOmb.
The Bloomington Herald Of the 18th inst stated
substantially that Gov. Whitcomb had remarked in
his speech in that town. that Gov. Bigger had par
doned a person in Clay county indicted for assault
and battery with bowie knife and stabbing man
with intent to commit murder that the pardon was
granted BEFORE TRIAL; that he also pardoned the
same individual for similar charge on indictment in
another county TRIAL; not only this, but he
pardoned the person for the crime of profession
al gambling punishable in the penitentiaryl on an
indictment in Posey county, and this also
TRIAL. The Herald declaring its disbelief of this
statement, (very courteous and charitable isn't it y
asks the editor of the Journal to enquire into the
truth of the matter and let the truth be told.
Well, the Journal after promising to do it, and then
waiting several days, engaged in the inquiry, no
doubt, comes out with long expected in the
Daily of Monday. In the first place. it conveniently
confines its attention to the case first named. Ii
SAYS NOTHING OF THE OTHER TWO CASES! And as
to the first after saying that Gov Whitcomb sought
to have recoectcd that applications for the pardonng
power preserved file in the Secretarys Office"
&c. cunningly ntinating thereby that he had mis-
stated the facts it does not deny or contradict sin
gle remark imputed to Gov. Whitcomb by the Herald,
which being his violent political opponent has no
doubt given the matter its harshest colorings. The
Journal restricts ITSELF not denial of the pardon
but to matters in excuse of it. 1t says that the pro-
scouting attorney, E. W. McGaughey and others,
stated in letter to Gov. Bigger that the person did
not intend to kiH Well then, where the
siy of pardonng him of the intent alone and BEFORE
TRIAL. Why not let the jury say that there was no
LII ,I,osr
We rather think the ,citneSses knew as much of the
INTENT and of the transaction generally, did Mr..
Prosecuting Attorney. Mr. McGaughey. Why
stop the mouths of the witnesses by pardoning before
trial! Why not let them speak out in the face of
the public 1t is true, the intent only pardoned.
But that was the felony. Take that away, and only
an assault and battery, or a mayhem at most, was
left. And in fact Mr.. Prosecuting Attorney after
wards dismissed the balance so that he escaped pun
ishment entirely. The Journal seems conscious of
the weakness of its Defence for it says, we express
opinion as to the ProPriety of granting the par
don !" Very well; then why insinuate that it is
high treason for others TO call it in question:
But why does the Journal slip the other two
cases. when his brother is anxious to know about
them We beg to be excused for supplying the
omission And in doing so we will not repeat as ap
plicabe to himself the Journal editors remark she
ought to have recolected that these matters found
in the Secretary's Office" But we will say that the
record of pardons show that the individual
pardoned of another indictment for assault and bat
terry with intent to commit MURDER in Posey county,
and also of an indictment for professional gaming in
the same county and that the last two were
pardoned BEFORE TRIAL,-that is, WITHOUT TRI-
AL Now we will say nothing of the moiiues of the
Ex-Governor, for look into the heart of
another; but to enable the public to form their opin
ion gire The facts, and add the further statement,
that although the indictments of the last cases
had been in existence long time, yet they were not
granted until after the August election at which Gov.
Bigger was a candidate. The first case was pardon
ed the fall previously. Here then is the case of an
individual being pardoned for three separate offences,
of high grade committed in different places, and at
considerable intervals of time, and that soithout
trial being had! We happen to think that the Sc
cond case, at least, ought to have made Gov Bigger
suspect that the offender not exactly the kind of
man who ought to find favor.
But it is said Gov. Whitcomb ought not to speak
of this matter. But Gov. w. takes the ground that
he has endeavored to restrain the extravagant of
the pardoning power And nothing is an improve
ment except by comparison. He must compare his
course with that which preceded it. And in all this
he restricts himself entirely to Gov Bgger's official
conduct. He calls names, and INDUCES in RI
baldry or unsavory epithets. Above all, he does not
impeach his veracity. Now if one cannot comment
upon mention the public and official conduct
of an officer without its being called abuse, have
come to a strange pass. We have not yet spoken of
the seventy pardons out of the penitentiay by Gov
Bigger, of the many done by his immediate pre-
decessors. The Journal says of Gov. Bigger, that he
has heart and that such is its goodness that there
may have been cases where he exercised the pardon
ing power which were unworthy of Executive Glenn
ency, &c. For prejudiced political advocate, this
is saying good DEAL Does not the Journal know
that Gov. Biggers extravagant of the pardoning
power is a common topic even with his own political
friends hercabouts We may have more to say on
this subject hereafter
! CoRoNER's INQUEsT.-We are informed by Coroner
Al So tbo1 oo1