Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-02-24

nor believed. Is little unreasonable.
However righteous his wrath might
be against the originafors of these re-
ports, his delay for eight months, TO
contradict them. thus allowing rumors
TO grow into charges, and suspicious
10 harden into belief, Is alone n suf-
iieient rclutation ofintentional falehood
in those who have since repeated them.
His excuse. that che had not been in
the habit Of paying attention 10 the
rawlings OF fanatics. or ordinary news
paper calumnies," &c., is not sufficient.
He has notbcen Sin the habit" either,
we suspect. OF being charged with Of
fetal excuses, or cruel. as wei as H.
legal conduct. II he has. then these
might, TO him. at least, be common
newspaper calumnies, that he could
afford 10 treat with his habitual indif.
ference. But hardly otherwise. His
calling hard names, however unreas-
enable, may be pardoncd in consider
alton Of the provocation he conceiycs
hc has endured. A man irritated by
injurious accusations, universally cred
tied, which have loaded him with u
reputation whose bad odor will last
HIM hislile time. is not apt to be dain-
ty In the language he uses 10 repel
them.
Mr.. Robinson's success in making
out a case for himself, is less than he
thinks, though nota failure. But he
has failed totally in making one either
against the four clergymen, or the au-
thors of the "Aypoal." We do not
understand by what pliable sort Of
condemnation no makes the authors of
that paper "liars" and the approyers
merely "censurable." They are all
in the same boat. Ii the clergymen
believed the statement Of the Appeal
to be false. they deserve more than
ccnsurc for approving t. Ii they be-
lieyed them true, and with reason, they
deserve neither condemnation nor cen.
sure. The imputation Of calumnious
purpose must rest against them NIL,
authors and approycrs alike. notwth-
standing Mr.. Robinson's dclrrenlial
distinction. He proves the "'lic." rs
10 the authors. thus: The charge that
he refused bail. lis, it possible. II cal
jimmy Of deeper turpitude, because il
is not only false that he was offered
bail, ( but II is calculated 10 make an
erroneous impression on some that he
had right TO take bal" which was
not the case. Suppose the author had
said, expressly, that Mr.. Robinson had
right to bail u fugitive under the law.
and had argued at length for his opin-
ion. although the Courts have decided
against him, could that be "lie" or a
"calumny" citherY At the worst, il is
only misconstruction of the Marshal's
duties--a wrong opinion Of the law.
Mr.. Robinson is lawyer. Does he
usually call himself "liar" for differ
ing with the Court about a law point?
-or q "calumniator" for saying so,
though il might make an erroneous
impression" on n good manyY lfthese
men were sincere in their opinion, the
expression Of ttcould be neither "lie"
nor "calumny."
lie says IL is false that he was ever
offered bail at all. rs is asserted in the
Appeal" Then the authors of il
have erred in matter OF fact, and il
intentionally, they deserve all Mr..
Robinson gives them. But howis thatY
lie admits that bail teds rendered. The
amount is not in not in controversy
The error is simply us TO the officer to
whom IL was rendered, and that is n
mistake easily made by those who
knew that the Marshal, aud not the
Commissioner, was held responsible
for the fugitive, and was therefore the
officer most interested in the matter.
And he has permitted the assertion OF
the agency in the refusal to go uncon-
troverted for nearly year. Surely,
such an error, under such circum-
stances, Is too slight TO justify such
denuncation. lfthereis any calumny,
the Marshal Is the calumniator. lie
has less reason for asserting that they
Intentionally stated this untruth. than
they have for asserting that he was the
cause OF Frecman's bail being refused.
His epilhets, like most abuse, go home,
and will stay there.
lie says he did not require Freeman
TO pay three dollars day for guarding
himself, On the contrary, Freeman's
friends insisted on doing il rather than
that he should be taken away; rs MIR,
Robinson feared the insecurity Of the
jail here would compel him to do. The
excuse is lame. BY Mr.. Robinson
own statement, he forced Freeman To
the alternative either OF paying or GO
ing. And with all his family. friends,
and property here, what was such an
alternative but an absolute exaction!
Mr.. Robinson is paltering with the
public when he denies that he caused
the consequences of his own fears,
unless he shows that they were real
and reasonable. And he does not
nor does not try. His defense. on this
point, does notleaye him so safe, that
he can afford to indulge in virtuperatiou
Of those who assailed it, 1t will be
time enough to talk about his apprc'
tensions when he gives reason fol
them.
Furthermore, he is astonished thai
the charge of maltreating Freeman in
Jail, is not made with the rest, and
proceeds gratuitously to give us hi
account of that matter. Even as M
tells it, it is no credit TO him. He say
that he requested Freeman to expos,
himself twice. We know that this
was in the presence of Ellington's wit