The Nevada journal., 1859-02-25
The Griffin Case again.

Had we less experience in the petty
spite. the unblushing effrontery, and the
total unscrupulousness of the Nevada
Democrat, we might have been idle
enough to have imagined that when it
detected itself in error, it would honest
ly own up the fact, and not by perse-
verance in shallow sophistry persist in
fastening an undeserved stain upon
person who had excited it's malevolence.
We never anticipated that the Demo-
crat would do an honest thing, and our
efforts have only been directed towards
the defense of an honorable gentleman
and faithful public officer, regardless
whether the Democrat saw fit to persist
in or retract its falsehoods. We have
given a prominence to this matter from
sense of Justice to Mr.. Boring, who has
been so filthily assailed. The Democrats
second article pretended it did not assail
Mr.. Boring, although its direct effort
was to convict him, to use mild language,
of gross carelessness, and disregard of
one Of the most important duties of his
station. We fastened that falsehood on
it by quotation from the Sacran ento
Bee, which learns from the Democrat"
that "the Sheriff had committed the
acts charged by that paper. The Dem
ocrat now replies to that by calling it a
generality" So be it, if by general
ity" it means that we indicated its gen.
eral disregard for truth. We specifical-
ly exhibited its falsehood in the instance
referred to. Wenow cite another--the
San Jose Tribune, of last week. We
nailed second practical falsehood upon
it by quotations from its own articles
showing that it falsifed its own state
ments of what was the duty of the pub
| lie press. The Democrat also calls this
a generality" Such shameless con-
duct is generality" with that sheet.
The main falsehood we charged upon
the Democrat was that Griffin was
"allowed 10 go about town on his parole,
unattended and unmatched" AS long
as he was in charge of sworn officer he
was not 50 allowed. The Democrat, in
its statement about Shellhorn's brew
cry endeavored to create the impression
that no officer was in attendance upon
him. When we offered to produce an
affidavit to that. matter, it admits he
was not then unattended or unmatched,
but thinks it maintains its original po-
sition, because it was not THE officer we
supposed. Fit was any sworn officer
the Democrat must know it was doing
an injustice to the Sheriff, to endeavor
to maintain that its .original assertion
was made out. We admitted he was
away from the Jail on two occasions. =
The other occasion we alluded to in
our last article, and the Democrat mere.
ly puts its own belief in opposition to our
statements. When it retracts the false.
hoods of which it has already been con-
victed, its assertions of its belief may
he of the value of dicer's oath, and not
till then.
The Democrat made its charges, and
to maintain its position, should have
proved them. We arc not called upon
to prove negative. We have shown
that its asserted facts, sometimes in terms
at others in spirit, were eithergross false.
hoods, or the truth SO colored as to sus-
tain its malicious insiruations.
i We content ourself with mailing the
only fresh falsehncd that we observe in