The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1870-01-31
Major Robinson again.

~
troversy over dead men or dead is
sues, and shall occupy very little
space this morning in reply to Major
ROBINSON. One or two points alone
demand our attention.
First, the question of veraeity.
Major ROBINSON asserted that he
' had applied to the Commits
sioaers to be employed in prosecuting
VICTOR BIscH., In reply VIC printed
the application of himself and Ma
TIA WILLARD, dated March II,
1868" but in printing this document
our composltor made a blunder, which
was overlooked by the proof-reade r,
and the date appeared in the jour
NAL. March II. 1869"
Now, see what this typographical
error has induced Major ROBINSON
to do? He says, in his card this
morning, on this point:
1.-THE communication made to the
Board by Capt. Willard and myself,
published by you on yesterday, to
refute that assertion THAT he had
never applied to the Board bears
date March IL, 1869, three months
after my appointment had been made"
Now, the communication referred
to. which is still in our possession.
does NOT bear date March IL, 1862"
but " March IL. 1868" No body
knows this better than Major ROBIN
SON. 1t can't be possible that he
- - -,szkoI-o, rrh1ln xa1- ao IN
the date of that communication.
Does he not, rather, willfully assert
what he knows to be untrue? The
Major may explain this to his friends
as best he ian. If any of them doubt
the correctness of our statement, we
will submit the communication itself
for their inspection. A glance at the
Majors card alone demonstrates the
fact. Why would he and Captain
WILLARD be applying to the Commits
sioners for employment to prosecute
an officer three months after he had
been employed for that specific SER
vice? No one can imagine a reason
for so absurd a performance.
The Major complains that we re-
fused, on one occasion, topublish one
of his long-winded and abusive arti-
Giles against VICToR BIsoH, which
contained the specifications in the
complaint on which the Auditor had
been a~rraigned. We did refuse, and
for the distinct reason that, having
taken the case into court, it was IN
just and d~espicably mean to attempt
to prejudice the accused in the esti-
nation Of the people. prior 10 the
trial. No lawyer that we ever knew
or heard of, but Judge ROBINSON,
would have thought of pursuing such
a course. Our columns, at
least, were not to be made
subservient to such malignity and IN
fairness. Having taken the matter
into court, it was but fair that it
should be settled there. Not content.
however, with our refusal, the Mayor
called a public meeting of citizens,
which many of our readers have not
forgotten, and made a public display
of venom. On that occasion he was
oblivious of the fact that abuse as
not argument, and that hard ooords
can't change the facts" We appeal
to every man who attended that meet
ing, If they ever heard more virulent
and vindictive abuse heaped upon the
Vilest criminals than Major ROBINSON
then and there applied to the county
officers.
We do not care to follow the Major
through his long bill of particulars.
Suffice it to say that he refused to APP
pear and prosecute on the day fixed
for trial, and permitted the case to be
dismissed without trial. That of
itself is a sufficient answer. His
standing as a lawyer and an honest
man was involved in successfully
sustaining before the Court the
position he had assumed before the
people. He was a volunteer in the
first instance, and as a volunteer
he should have fought the battle out
and not skulked and lodged as soon
as he discovered danger ahead. He
insinuated the other day, that there
would be an hour of retribution. We
don't doubt it. We are confident
also that no one will discover it's adj
vent sooner than the Major himself.
THE indications are that the army
expenses will be largely reduced.
The House Military Committee have
almost completed a bill which pro-
vides for a mastering out Of four