The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-03-08

To the Editor OF the Sentinel.
SIR: AS regards literary merit, the
editorial matter of the Indianapolis
Journal, under its present management, is
far inferior to what it has been at any
time since it assumed to be the leading
organ of the republican party in the great
state of Indiana. 1t murders the grammar
of the English language indiscriminatel
cripples rhetoric, ignores logic and main
tsins a state of profound ignorance of
philosophy, though at times it discovers
in the writings of political opponent the
use OF plural verb for a single subject,
when such use stands out so plainly
doubt that the error Is a typo
graphical one. AS for reserve, or
a disposition to mind his own business,
or determination to keep bis paper clean
of offensive personalities, or within the
bounds of legitimate or progrt ssive jour
nalism, which would commend him 10 all
that wish TO see our newspapers iu the
HANDS of seli-respecting gentlemen who
believe that the amenities Of social life are
not out of place in the conduct OF caily
journal, the writer of these long, foolish
articles that occupy the fourth pIge CT the
Indianapolis Journal is blissfuIly ignor-
ant. Though of the opinion which he
wishes to elucidate to the satisfaction of
bis readers, that IL Is not grammaiicalIy
cate of a single noun, he has not yet pre-
gressed sufficiently 10 know that there is
such thing as
A FIGURE OF SPEECH;
that sometimes an instance wholly imag.
mary or a fact of absolute similarity, is
used TO illustrate and make more obvious
the one under consideration. A case OF
this kind occurred in yesterdays Journal
Judge Petit had written letter TO the
Journal explaining his connection with
the Peter and Wright cas-, which seems
to be troubling the slumbtrs OF that paper
to an alarming extent. The Journal re-
fnsed to publish this letter, and it was sent
the next day, with an accompanying note
of explanation, to the Sentinel for publics-
ton, In which paper it appeared day before
Yesterday morning. The Journal said:
"If democr attic editors really want to
know whether Mr.. Orth had been guilty
OF anything improper in that case, they
should ask Judge Petit, for he knew"
And liurthtr, on insisting that the
judge shared in the spoils, or was
to share in them, ottsnsibly for. the
purpose of injuriug Judge Petit In the es-
timstion of the people, as he Is member
of the Supreme Court and q democrat, but
forgetting that the insinuatien that the
Judge Yves to receive q share of the spoils
included also the idea tast there must
hsye been spoils to share or TO be divided.
Judge Petit, in reply, said: "Tbe tran
script Of that case is on file in tie Supreme
Court clerks office, and can be seen by
any person desirous OF knowing what IL
contains. Mrs. Peter had q suit pending
againss Wright, Ortb, Brocket, Brand, and
Others, charging them with fraud in pre-
curing conveyance OF her land. Orth and
Brocket, being lawyers, defended Them
selves. Brand employed Mr.. Baird to de-
Huff, TO defend him." Judge Pettit, then,
was simply the attorney ef Wright, with
Huff as
AN ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY IN THE SAME
Was anything of equsi supreme littleness
and insignifcsnce as this nonsensi-
cal chattering OF the Journal
ever before put in print? Speak
ing of the judges letter the journal
said: "If Oztn and Wright were guilty OF
..isud In their relations to Mrs. Peter,
Judge Petit, as the attorney for Wrigl t,
used his ability to further and foster a
fraud upon a defenseless widow, and Ger
tainly is as guilty as either of the princi-
pals" More ignorance than ever. Was
it ever equalled? If an attorney defends
a man guilty OF any crime, then the attor-
ney il ss guilty as his client. Such silli-
ness Is provoking. and makes man blush
for the editor. When Wright sought to
engage the services of Judge Petit as an
attorney, he, with Orth, denied the charge
and declared bis innocence, but the trial
developed the fact that they were
both guilty. (6 Ind, 1884, At the msn-
ton OF the name o. j. w. Gordon the
Journsl flies off the handle, beginning:
as follows: 1--WE have only TO say further
that the allusion in Judge Peotivs letter to
Maj. Gordon is par. for courteousness,
with his reference to the writsr in the
Journal" It is not supposed by any one
chat Judge Petit mentioned the name Of
Maj. Gordon in the connection his name
appears because he Is republican csnd.-
date for attorney general, or because he is
republican, but because the mass OF the
people consider him one OF the best cri-
minal lawyers In the state, and because
they are more familiar with the '.isls in
which he takes a part than with hose in
which any other attorney in the state Is
ever engaged, oftentimes bringing his
guilty client out all right.
NOBODY BLAMEs MAI. GORDON ~
for defending men charged with crime, for
all of these, including Wright and Orth,
are innocent until they are found guilty,
and If there are any doubts on this point,
make careful per,issl of q transcript on
file In the Office of the Clerk OF the Su-
preme Court-Peter w. Orth ct
al. Judge Petit said, In his letter
to the Journal, "that some fool or knave'
IN that paper was trying to connect him
with Orth in the Peter and Wright case.
The Journal didp's like it. That is, didn't
like 10 be called ''fool or a knave." II
the writer knew anything, he knew what
he was writing was fals", aud what else
could he be to do such thing, short Of
"knsve?n II he thought be was giving
pure reason what else could he be but .
''fool?" In great America, where every