Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-10-18
DAILY SENTINEL.
WEDNEsDAY MORNING, OCTOBER Il
OF STATES EVIDENCE.

NEDN ESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER lo
-TURNsNG oF STATES EVIDENCE"
paper called The Brovnstovs uniou." pro-
Tossing 10 be Democratic. az We notice by the
Josrnsl charges that "the turning Of States evil
deDee by lie the Ssntinels) principal editor, be
fore the Military Commissions, gave il such
bad odor that the Democracy couldn't stsod IL. .
There IL no Foundation whatever for this aecu-
sstion Of the Brovnstewn paper. We did not
turn stste's evidence before the Military Com
: missions, 90 IL alleges, or vas any such terms
required By the prosecution a. the condition Of
our release from Imprisonment. This fact 10 dis
tnctly stated 10 our testimony, and there 10
nothing connected with the trial before the
Military Commissions which will Justify The
charge that the principal editor Of the
Sentinel turned States evidence. After
vs were released, the trial of BowLEs aud others
bssug IN progress re we're subpenesd as wit
aess, Just as all the Witnesses were Who were
summsasd a. such. to appear before that tribu-
nal. What power bad we 20 resist thi. sub
ponsf How could We avoid this summops Of
the Government There were Thousands Of
bsyonets around indianapolis ready to en-
force ia commands, and we hsd already had
little experiences in the character OF military
power Bet even then We did not appear before
the Commission until guards had been twice
sent for US and order bad been issued for our
rs-arres. for eontumaey. Under these creum-
stances We gave oar tssii mony before the Com
mission, and we did 50 truthfully. We stated
nothing material In that testimony, however, 50
far a. sustaining tho Government case was con-
csrned, but what was known to the prosecutors
and which already had been developed before the
Commission by other witnesses
We should have preferred 10 have made the
substance OF our testimony before the Commits
sion q voluntary statement, long before il az
psarsd, If We had been permitted to do %. This
privilege vas denied Us. In fact We were, while
In confnemens. positively prohibited from max
ing any communications whatever to the public,
and the penalty for violating this order en-
tire exclusion from any communications what
ever with our friends and our family. These
were the circumstances under which We were
placed and We had not the power 10 resist or
ton OF the whole matter What was the charac-
ter OF our testimony. and whom did it affscs7
/. certainly did not iDjure the Democratic party.
or the Sons OF Liberty. as an organization. It's
whole purport was yindicstiOn OF the Democrat-
ic party from any utilization any completely with
the charges of conspiracy. upon which the pris-
onsrs O. the accused were being tried. IL demon
strated that the Democratic party. when the fact
was brought 10 their knowledge that revolution.
AIRY schemes were entertained, so Wild aud vision
airy that they looked more like the plottings of
the inmates of az insane asylum than Of saae
men, promptly put measures foot to bring
them to an end, and they were successful. There
Was no hesitation upon the part OF tho Democracy
in the discharge of their duty as citizens as our
testimony aud the facts in the ease fully demon
strate. What wrong in this? Was il not right that
The principal editor of the Sentinel. and Chairman
Of the Democratic State Central Committee, who
was cognzant of these facts. should sxonerate his
party friends from the attempt which was being
made to hold the Democratic party OF Indiana
responsible for a revolutionary scheme said to have
been concocted in Chicago and of very extensive
ramfcations papeTr What reasonable ex-
ception can the editor of the BFownstown paper
or any sensible man. take 70 our action in this
matter, when viewed from the standpoint We
have statedf In fact. what reasonable objection
can any one make to our testimony, unless by
party who had participated in the conspiracy
We have not copy of our testimony before Us
(being at home sick and confined in our bed
but from our recollection of H. inquire of the
Brownstown Union editor, if IL did any Injury
TO any person on trial before the Commission
In fact we knew nothing of the completely, if
any. of either of them in the charges alleged
against them. and for which they were being
tried
The trial of Bowls aad Others before the
Military Commission prosecuted mainly TO
aid the success of the Republican party in indiana.
One OF the most prominent of the prosecutors in
formed US that the whole affair was God-send
to the Republican party. and if il it had not been
developed just as il wss, the State would have
gone Democratic by handsome majority. The
prosecution managed with great deal of
sagacity. and just In such way as to make as
much party capital out of the affair possible
The arrests were made with that view in end
and the time selected to produce as much party
effect es possible The same object was dsvel-
oped In the time fixed for the commencement Of
the trials. and they were continued just in
way to make them as damaging as possible to
the Democracy, without giving them any oppor-
tanity by counter testimony 10 counteraet the in
fuencs upon the public mind which the pro.eeu-
ton had very ingeniousIy, and, to large eI-
tent. successfully poisoned aud prejudiced. And
Is MAS net until the testimony OF the principal
editor of the Sentinel was given that the truth
in the case VAS made known, and the Democratic
party was relieved from charge of completely,
aiding and abetting, the conspiracy. Neither was
it known until then the successful part
that the leading members of the Democratic
partyin this city had taken to mp whatever there
was of the revolution scheme in the bud
for the conspiracy really embraced pat very few
persons cery teIr, as facts have since developed.
And for this We are charged by q Democratic
editor with turning States evidence" and Djuf-
ing the Democratic party But enough for 10.
day. We started out 10 deny that we had turn
ed States evidence, as charged by the Browns