The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1855-02-16

Asu,msn OF HrM.-The Journal yesterday
morning announced that Mr.. Hardin had asked
leave on Saturday, 10 record his vote on the tenn
perapce bill, but il did not say on which side he
had voted. The Journal anu Hardin are about
alike. both afraid to take sides on any question.
The Journal was ashamed TO say on which side
its Know Nothing representative voted
Enquirer.
Just to illustrate how contemplate falsifer
of plain truth We have for an opponent here, We
extract the paragraph referred to by the Enqui-
rer, upon which il charges We were ashamed 10
say upon which side Mr.. Hardin voted:
Last Saturday Mr.. Hardin asked leave to re-
cord his vote AGAINST the Temperance Bill, he
not being present when the vote was taken.
Right in the face of that paragraph, the only
allusion in Wednesdays paper TO Mr.. Hardin's
vote, the Enquirer says we did not say and were
afraid to say, and ashamed to say, that Hardin
voted against the Bill! Mr. Hardin had right
to vote as he pleased. and his constituents have
the same right 10 call him to an account tor his
vote, and hold him to rigid responsibility
We leave Mr.. Hardin to defend his vote as
best he may. Col. Drew, in defence oi his own
vote, claimed that he did not vote against the bill
but because it was wrong in principle ard detri-
mental to the public Interest," Mr.. Hardin can
not well make more absurd defence.
When the Enquirer speaks of the Journal be-
ing afraid 10 take sides on any question, let 1t
loex to its own position on the temperance ques-
ton. Before the election il was a strong whisky
paper, and labored to prove that the drinking Of
e H.,, ho
Scripture. After the election il sobered of, and
sought by wh-lpish cringing 10 court up temper
ance men, and indi .nan,ly denied that Demo-
cracy was the whisky party. 1t looked very ia
voraby upon the introduction of a prohibitory
law, and was very much in favor Of something
OF the kind, like all Old Liners in theory lately
till The law and its responsibilities stared them
right in the face. Now it evidently does not
know what to do. The ,criting editor abroad
and his innocent follower al imitator at home,
like the law and they don't like it, They like
its passage, and they are angry that ii was al
lowed 10 pass. They are inclined to support
Col. Drew for voting against the bill and they
aie inclined to pitch into Mr.. Hardin for doing
precisely The very sane thing. They republish
A the Stale SenliuclS Complaint Ou pas
sage of the bill and thus apparently warmly SYM
palhiz. with its grief. and at the same time
think il better to let this law be tried. All this
is taking position We presume.
Now the position of the Journal may be sta
ted very briefly, and We would thank The Enqu-
Ter to be as concise and candid The Journal
objects to the cider clause, because we happen TO
have large and thrifty orchard, am he cider
Iherefrom is frs rate. Mex, we object to the ma
tive wine clause, because vel have superb litile
vineyard in the country! Who could have a
better objection? But we, editor and Journal are
most emphatically supporters Of this Prohibit
tory Bill. at least til trial shall have proven il
not the thing its friends iHtended it should be
We are willing to accept it as IL is, although in
several particulars We believe ii could Be
improved But it is far better than no law-and
the choice was this or nothing, or the very great
fisk of nothing. How does The Enquirer standl
We are willing to accommodate it with little
free f. hit on This subjec', if necessary.