The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-06-13
The Sentinel Impaled.

the policy embodied II the hepuDlI-
can State platform. The conversion
of the entire nati0naldebt into green
backs, as advocated By Mr.. Pendleton,
and his echoes. the Cincinnati En-
Qujrer and State Sentinel, would ac-
tually ruin business. just there is
where the panic would come in
EvaRSvifle Journal.
The JOURNAL ought to be ashamed
of such pervarication and Justification.
Mr.. P~endieton, the Cincinnati En-
Quireg. and the State Sentinel have
never advocated the conversion Of
the entire national debt into green
backs" and he JOURNAL knows it.
That paper canLot quote a word from
Mr.. Pendlet0n, or the Enquirer or
Sentinel that ever advocated such a
policy. 1t IS a downright, shabby
f%alseho0d, of which a respectable pa
per ought to be ashamed.-Seatinel.
We gave Mr. PENDLEroN credit for
just such views as the Cincinnati En-
Quirer uttered for him. While the
Sentinel accuses US Of prevarieation
and Justification, it has not the man
illness to copy from the Enquirer the
very paragraph upon which we based
our statement as to M. PENDLEToN's
position. Did it overlook that para
graph? We copy it again for its bene-
fit. The Enquirer is talking about
the Democratic Convention Of Mis-
souri,, at which the distinguished re-
pudiator, and : acknowledged leader.
of the party in the Northwest" Mr..
B. PoMERoY, made the two leading
speeches. It says:
The Convention passed no resolu-
ton, either by way Of platform ou the
current political issues, 10 by way Of
instruction to their delegates. But
we have an "irreversible guaranty"
on both these subjects-to use a form
of expression sanctioned by our Radi-
cal brethren-On the men selected.
They are unanimously In faror Of dis
charging the national debt IN leqdl
tenders AS ADVOCATED BY MR..
PENDLET0N, and will accordingly
cast their votes for him in the Con-
vention, as the author and the best
representative of that policy.
Yet in the face of this paragraph,
the Sentinel has the brass to accuse
US of Justification. Why didn't it
copy the paragraph? 1t was in u
former article. Whatdoes =" diseharg-
ing the national debt in legal-tenders "
mean, but to convert the bonds into
greenbacks? We know it hurts, but
the Sentinel ought to be more guarded
in its utteranees, and not rush with
such impetuosity upon sharp pointed
facts.
Now, let US look at the resolutions
adopted BY our Republican s ate Con-
vention, and those adopted at Chi
cago. The Indiana resolution reads
thus:
The public debt, made necessary
by the rebellion, should be honestly
paid; and all bonds issued therefor
should be paid in legal-tender, CON-
monty called greenbacks, except where,
by their express terms, they provide
otherwise"
The Chicago resolutions are as fol-
lows:
IS We denounce all forms of re-
pudiation as a national crime. The
nation requires the payment Of the
public indebtedness, with the utmost
good faith to all the creditors, both
at home and abroad, not only accord
ing TO the letter, but the spirit Of the
laws under which it was contracted.
5. The national debt, contracted as
it has been for the national salvation,
should be extended over a fair period
for redemption, and it is the duty of
Congress to reduce the rate of inter
thereon, wherever it can honestly
be done"
Now wherein do the two conflict?
Why don't the Sentinel point out the
difference? The Indiana resolution
says the public debt should be hon
paid. So does the Chicago reso-
The Indiana resolution
specifies how it should be paid. The
Chicago resolution only asks hat it
be paid in good faith to all the cred
itors, and we maintain the Indiana
resolution don; pretend to do any
thing else. In addition, the Chicago
resolution asks that the payment of
the debt be extended over fair period
for redemption, in order hat interest
may be reduced and the burdens of
taxation lightened. Now is not the
fact that the Sentinel bitterly opposes
resolution on the ground that it