The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-12-22
The Posfafisce Matter.


Under the above caption a rather remark
urday. 1t bears internal evidence that
some one wrote it not familiar with the edi-
torial pen. 1t emits somewhat OF the mus
tiness Of legal hteraeure. and yet IL lacks
much IN true legal wisdom. Its purpose
and design, though evidently intended to.
be concealed, are as plain as the ears of the
ass lily covered by the unduly stretched
attack upon q court, including judges.
Jury and witnesses more palpable and
plain, and at the same time mani
testing a skulling cowardice in fearing to
openly assert what it covertly insinuates,
the Sc ,tinel has never met with 1t. 1t
should be borne in mind by the reader chat
the Journal bas concealed from the public,
as far as it could, all the facts connected
with the postoffice matter, and this attack
upon the proceedings of the grand jury is
the first intimation that its readers have
had of the affair. 1t, indeed, openly de-
clsres that even now, while the alleged cor
ruption in the postoffice is matter ofpub-
lie scandal, it declines to enter upon an ex-
animation of the facts. 1t has an entirely
different design in tho article, and to that
IL addresses itself. If the writer had had
the decency to omit his illusions to the Sen
tinel in the article, this journal would have
been willing TO leave the matter unnoticed
in its columns, and refer the article TO the
of those most injured by its
aspersions, the judges, grand jury and wit
nesses of the United States Court now in
session. But however unpleasant the duty
may be the Sentinel will not shrink from
the attack, coming from a source we know
not, but in style and manner that needs
to be repulsed, even as gentleman must
sometimes use his powers of self defense
against the personal attack of the bully and
the blackguard. The readers of the Senti-
mel will bear witness that no unprovoked
attack has been made upon the Journal or
it's proprietors in these columns, and the
of the Sentinel have sought to
hold amicable relations with Its contempor-
aries, seldom ever referring to columns of
abuse of a damaging character. The
Holloway brothers very well know
that even while the Journal has
striven to damage the Sentinel and
belittle its present management, that all the
facts that have yet come to light in the
grand jury investigation were known by the
Sentinel weeks ago, and that personal inter
views sought by them have made US sc-
quainted with their side of the story, and by
the solicitation of their friends and per-
sonal disielinstion to forestall what we had
reason to believe would come-a legal inves-
Sentinel remained silent until
publications of other journals circulating in
our midst made the matter notorious. The
Sentinel then only, In the legitimate pursuit
out any attempt to make the matter point
for political capital or personal defamation.
The action of the grand jury, which we are
informed was legitimate and proper in MAX
Ing public the difficulty that surrounded
them, rendered 1t impossible for journal
that pretended to give ths news from re-
naming silent any longer. But nothing the
Sentinel has said has been more
prejudicial to the accused than the
the Judge, under the instructions OF the
court, and the Sentinel is in no way con-
earned in reference to the possibility OF being
arraigned before the learned and impartial
judges who sit upon the bench while this in
vestigstion is in progress.
But is the Journal thus free from blame in
this matter? As intimated above, the article
referred TO is a malignant attack upon the
judges, grand jury. and witnesses, and for
the evident purpose of prejudicing the
pending case by preventing an indictment.
The only party connected with the court
that escapes this malignant attack Is Dis
trict Attorney Trussler, and why he escapes
public opinion has already decided and il
needs no elaboration here. II the Journal
had Sufficient cause to attack the judges
upcn the bench and had done so in open,
manly utterances. the Sentinel would have
the act as brave aud meritorious.
But to make the attack, as was done in the
opening sentence of the second paragraph, in
a covert manner was cowardly in the ex-
IRENE. ale Journal says:
We do nosEnow. nor do we care who was the
author of the proceedings of the grand Jury in
making puullc presentation of a matter being
by them. We do say IL would be
very hard to nnd a precedent for such pro-
ceeding. The Jury and every one connected
with IL are sworn 10 secrecy. The policy OF the
law OF secr6cy is dIluble-fFst, that persons be-
ing presented for crl me may not get Information
fit and fee from Justice; and secondly, that
persons suspected OF crime and fOund on full
10 vestigation to be Innocent may not be in
jured In character by the investigation. Both
the policy and spirit Of the law, if not the oath
OF the jury, were violated by this public procla-
ton OF the case in open court.
This is an indirect attack upon the court
and the fiimsy attempt to conceal it by a few
words of praise of Judges Gresham aud
Drummond Immediately following plainly