The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-06-30
The Courier Unequal to the Emer-
gency.


gency.
When the Courier stated that the
JOURNAL had taken position against
the Fifteenth Amendment. and we
met the statement with denial, chal-
longing the production of any, edito-
rial from the JOURNAL taking posi-
ton against the Amendment, we sup
posed the Issue to be so fairly made
that it could be decided without quib-
ling or pettifogging. 1t was simply
q matter Of fact to be determined by
the editorials which had previously
appeared in this paper. In response
to our challenge the Courier copied
an editorial from the JOURNAL Of
March 9. Had that paper been con-
tent to let its readers have the edito
rialas Il lGds l0ritien we also would
have been content to let it speak for
itself. IF the Courier relied upon that
editorial 10 prove its allegation that
the journal had taken position
against the Amendment, what neees-
sity was there for editorially misrep-
resenting its language, or attempting
10 force its readers to miscOnstrue its
meaning? It was evident that the
Courier regarded its witness as de-
fcient, ADD true to a petifogging edu-
cation and experience, its editor seeks
to make his readers believe the jour
NAILS position was different from that
set forth in me very editorial he
copies from its columns. But this is
a very weak device and deceives no
one. If the Journal took ground
against the Amendment per Sc, it will
be easy to quote its language proving
the fact. If such language cannot be
found, the Courier ought to have the
independence to confess its mistake.
But we did not expect the latter, for
we have long ago learned that the
leading maxim of the party it repre-
sents j., "a lie we'll sustained an
sWers as good a purpose as the truth.
But the Courier insists that be-
cause we opposed the manner in
which it was proposed to ratify the
Amendment in this State, we must of
necessity be opposed to the Amend
ment itself. We do not think the
editor of that paper would like to
stand a similar application of his
logic. We remember. few years
ago. that Mr.. WHITTLEsEY wrote an
article violently abusive of some Ger
mans who had a picnic on Sunday
some distance from the city. He ac-
eused them of Decorating not only
Gods day but country graveyard as
well. Are we to infer that because
Mr.. WHITTLEsEY denounced that
party of Germans for holding
a picnic on a certain Sunday, in a
particular locality, that he is forever
and unalterably opposed to all Ger
mans holding picnics in any manner
on any Sunday and in any locality
If he is consistent with the logic he
seeks to force upon us, he must take
that position. Will he consent to this
application of his own reasoning?
In the Courier of yesterday, the
editor says >the JOURNAL comes
squarely up to the work and acknowl.
edges that when it opposed the rati
ication of the Fifteenth Amendment
it did so only because it was unwisC
and impolitic. This, of course, il
a stupid falsehood. The journal
never acknowledged any thing of tn,
kind, because there was no truth il
it. Having a foundation so false
it is to be expected that the who'll
superstructure of the article In yes
terday's Courier is fimsey and tot
tering. It's attempted sarcasms ART
Stiffness, and its talk about homes
sentiments,' conscience" &C., dis
eussiOn of matters with which it ha
no familiarity.