Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-06-12


If the Journal has any characteristic by which !
to distinguish it, it is for low and mean personal
attacks upon political opponents without any
apology whatever. We need only refer to its
course toward the late Governor WILLARD to il |
lustrate and justify this charge, if any be needed
In its issue of yesterday the Journal violently as
sails us because we had the temerity to question
the policy pursued by Governor MoRToN in his
administration of the duties of his Office 1t
does more than this. To make out a case it
charges that have set on foot efforts to injure
His Excellency. not only in public estimation"
but in private position" We may have been
placed in a position to have made the last charge
of the Journal good, but we challenge that paper
to show an instance in which we have made an
attack upon the private position" of the Gov
ernor. We admit that have copied arti-
Giles from Republican prints and published
the speeches of leading Republicans censuring
the acts of His Excellency, and if that is an of
fence we plead guilty to the charge. 1t is new
state of affairs if in this land of "free speech"
the acts of public functiOnaries, Republican func
tionaries, no longer subject to criticism and
censure without having the charge of treason"
hurled at those who exercise that constitutional
right, or a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Was the Journal ever deferred by that considera
ton from making its gross and lying insnuations
and falsehoods upon Democratic Administrations?
But let us look at the meanness of the Jour
nal from another stand-p point. We did not cen
sure the Governor for the appointment of Mr..
HEFFRES. We referred in brief editorial to the
fact that proposition had been offered by Re
publican in the Legislature to censure the Gov
ernor for that appointment, and gave the vote
upon it. If that is effort to injure His Excel
lency, from whom did it come? The pro-
position was offered by leading Republican
Representative, one of the most decided and able
in the House, and was warmly supported by an
other of equal standing. We allude to Messrs.
BINGHAM, of Jennings, and GRESHAM, of Harri-
son. Further than this, the proposition had the
approval of large number of leading Repub-
cans, who were only deferred from recording
their votes in its favor by considerations ofpolicy.
Is it manly in the Journal to attack us with filthy
insnuatons and mean falsehoods, when it had
proposed censuring the Governor for the appoint
ment of Mr.. HEFFREN? If any offense COM
mitted against the dignity and assumed immacu
lacy of the Governor, it came from Republicans.
1t was their act, not ours. 1t came from the Gov
errors own political friends, and that fact gives
it character. He should for that feel the
buke if he has any moral sensibility whatever.
The Journal refers to the position we occu-
pied upon the political difficulties of the
country previous to the aspect which they have
now assumed. We surprised, as must be the
public, at its shamefacedness in that regard Last
fall and winter, in terms unmistakable, it de-
nounced the Administration in advance for the
very course it has pursued. 1t pronounced it I'M
wise. impolitic, and suicidal. 1t declared that it
would never change the opinions it then express
ed, no matter who might oppose them. With
such record it has the impudence to charge
Others with inconsistency for coinciding with and
maintaining the views it advocated with unusual
ability But what is the use of discussing point
of honor with paper which habtually wallows
in its own mre and delights in the amusement
The Journal states that we asked protection
from Governor MORTON, and that but for "his
remonstrances with the leaders of the Infatuated
citizens, the establishment would have been torn
into pieces" One of those "leaders" we pre-
sumo was the Journal editor, who no doubt
instigated the sentiment and would have
reioiced in the destruction of a rival establish
ment. We never had any fear of such an
attack, knowing that only cowardly ruflians
would attempt it. The facts about Governor
MoRroS's protection are just these: A promi-
nent Republican informed US that an attack was
| to be made upon the Office at certain time. To
save riot, we were urged by prominent citizens,
some of whom were Republicans, to permit the
Governor to be informed of the report. 1t APP
pears from the admissions of the Journal that
the Governor was informed that there were such
intentions. To preserve the public peace, he
thought it advisable to send military guard to
prevent an outbreak. Otherwise, the building
and property would have been protected, and by
a force that would have been ample for the pur-
pose. But the Journal says We are meanly
ungrateful' TO the Governor for doing his duty
We should have been indebted to him if he had
informed us of the rufianly designs upon our es-
tablishment. But that information lie withheld
and permitted us to run hazard which he could
have guarded us against.
But enough. When the Governor and the
Journal rebuke the Republicans who have the
temerity to call in quest the acts of His Ex-
cellency, we will give them credit for some de-
gree of courage and manliness.