Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-10-09
Hon. r. w. Thompson's Speech.

The journal Is disposed to be very caustic
and just little bit facetious over our brief
notice of Hon. r. w. Thompson's speech in
the Representatives Hall, on Monday eve-
ming. 1t is most unfortunate, perhaps, that
the Sentinel does not more sedulously study
the taste aud conciliate the good will of the
Journal; but we cannot forego the pleasure,
nor throw off the habit which we have ac-
quired, of speaking our honest convictions in
a plain straight forward manner, even at the
risk of arorsing the criticisms of the presid-
ing genius Of that terrible sheet.
What wo may have said of know-nothing-
ism and know. nothings as party, In times
past, is one thing: what we said of r. w.
Thompson's speech, as speech, Is another,
and quite different thing. We cannot. for
the life of US, see wherein We have involved
ourselves in any Inconsistency, in all thatt the
Journal has quoted from our columns. In
speaking of know nothings and know moth
ingism, as such, we spoke of them as they
presented themselves to our view, at the
time, 10y their principles and their acts. In
speaking of Mr.. Thompson's speech. we spoke
of it as it presented itself to Our view at the
time it was delivered, and as the facts COM
PEELED us to speak. In our notice we made
no reference to know nothlngs or know moth
ingism. There was nothing In the speech
that required US to do SO. Had there been,
the journal would have seen that we have
no new position to assume in reference to the
party or its principles. Come to sift the
whole matter to the bottom, it will be seen
that the only exception which the Jo,s nal
takes to our remarks, is, that we esteemed
the.spcech to be an ''honsst, eloquent address
and one that contained some good sound Demo
cratic doctrines" Well so it was, and if the
Journal regards its Tn word as good for
anything. We can back mp our position by its
own testimony. That paper Of Wednesday
morning pronounced Mr.. Thompson's speech
to be an "old line speech, Nth Ndtive american
gloss" All the praise that we bestowed upon
it otherwise, is fully endorsed in the Jour
mars article of yesterday. Where, then, il
the reason of the Journals fault finding al
our criticism which it so fully acknowledges
to be correct Oil but, says the editor, JUS
see what you said some time ago about know
nothings and know nothirgism Very wei
suppose we said some very bad things
Then, again, suppose that Mr.. Thompson'l
speech was such one that we could not say
anything very "hard" or "ugly" about 1t
Does that show that we have changed front
or that we have justly laid ourselves open t.
the charge of inconsistency Not at all
And had the editor of the Journal exercised
half as much keenness of perception as b.
does keenness of wit, be would have at ono
seen the fallacy of his position. That MI
Thompson did not exhibit all the objection
able features in his speech, which we hsv,
heretofore been compelled to attribute h
know nothingism and know nothings az
party, was his fault, we spprehend, and no
our.
Unless the Journal can bring little :" big
ger gun" 10 bear against the Sentinel than 1t
column and quarter leader Of yesterday,
will fsd us, like most of its Kansas victims
"slive and kicking" after we have been "sho
dead"