Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1860-11-08
Horace Corbill. ESQ.


cation in a last Democrat. over his owI
proper signature. in reply to statcmen
we made in the RErUBLIcAN Of the 1Stl
ult.. in regard to charge made by A. G
4 Thompson, at Marmont, on the eve of th
felection. against Sheriff Barnard, which
tchargc, we stated, was confirmed in par
by MIR. Corhin. Thompson. we stated oil
the authority of a gentleman whose reputa
ton for truth and veracity is at least equa
to Mr.. Corbin's, charged that Barnard
at the time the prisoners, Wheeler ant
Perkins. escaped, was down town in a sa
loon. and in proof stated that Thomas X
Houghton, good Republican. had tole
MIR. Corbin SO. calling upon Mr.. Corbin
who was present. to confirm it. and thai
"Mr. Corbin said in response that Mr.
Houghton told him that Barnard was
down town." 4 ., -.
Thompson. in noticing our remarks. il
his issue of the 25th ult, said we charged
him with saying "that Thomas X. Hough
ton had said that Sheriff Barnard was, Al
the time Perkins anu his comrade made
their escape, down town in Saloon
drunk, and the Republican goes on to say
that Horace Corbin arose and confirmed
the statement" Thompson then add.
1--WE made no such statement 1t viii
be seen that Thompson substitutes thu
word drunk" which we did not use. and
Mr.. Corbin is equally disingenuous in hi.
communication. Hear him:
Il will suppose the first two witnesse,
called before the grand inquisitor. were
one Robert and one Austin Am right;
if so. did they tell you that Thompson sta
ted that L. x. Houghton said Barnard was
down town in saloon, drunk, when thos;
prisoners broke Jail? and did they tell yor
that /. thercupon confirmed the state.
ment?" ~ ~ 9.uea
We neither stated that Mr.. Corbin full.
ly confirmed Thompson's charge OIL. tina,
Thompson said that Barnard was drunk. y
Why do these worthless put language in oul
mouth we never used? The motives Of
both are the same aud too apparent to mis-
lead any one. We male plain and ex-
plicit statement in the first instance. and il
it was not correct, or if did Mr.. Corbin
any injustice, he could easily have shown
wherein it was false? Instead Of doing so,
however, he adds significant word to our
statement. in rather an indirect way, we
Admit. and then intimates that it is false
We submit the question to the public. is
this honorable, is it gentlcmanly? We
did not hear Thompson or Corbin's speech
on the occasion referred to, but the gentle
man who informed as what they said is q
respectable man and would not knowingly
misreprescnt Dir. Corbin or any one else
If Thompson did not use the language, in
substance, which we attributed TO him, why
docs not he or Corbin say so cmphatically
instead of first attributing to us what we
did not say and then denying it?
Mr.. Corbin admits Mr. Houghton's
statement to be true. but adds mo one but
Mattingly or his lying informants" char
ged him with making the statement he de-
Med, No one charged" Mr.. Houghton
with making statement Of any kind. I'M
less Corbin or Thompson did in THEN
speeches at Marmont. 1t is barely posi-
BILE orr "informants" misunderstood them,
but wo will have to have better evidence
than Thompson or Corbin's bare dcnials.
before we believe it. =
Mr.. Corbin asks us:
"Why did you not show Mr.. Houshton
the charge you had made against me. and
get his consent to place the statement he
had prepared, to the article in the shape OF
an indictment against me? Did you do ii?
Do you believe he would have authorized
you to make the use OF the statement you
have done, il you had not concealed from
bin the application 10 be made Of it,"
In reply to these questions all we have
to say is-1stly. Mr.. Houshton was pre-
sent when the gentleman from Union town
ship related what Thompson aud Corbin
stated in their speeches, and made his state
ment with full knowledge of all the facts
in the premises. and, oily. as lie could not
in any possible manner he held responsible
for any thing we might choose to say in
relation 80 tho subject, we did not suppose
it necessary at all to consult him in refer.
ence to the character Of the comments we
intended making Mr.. Houghton is res
ponsible only for his own statement. and
If he is dissatisfied with our accompanying
remarks. he can certainly speak for himself
We have no disposition to provoke an
acrimonious newspaper controversy with
Mr.. Corbin, otherwise, We might notice
some other remarks in his communication
and retort upon him in manner which
he would not, perhaps, consider very
flattering. but, we pass them by. for the
reason, that we feel oursclf beyond the
reach Of his assaults upon our vcracity and
the purity Of our motives. We are in toe
ooo1 n hulnor inst now to quarrel with any