The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-02-23

were simply in opposing amendments
to the constitution during times of in
ternal discord and commotion, and during
the absence from congress of the
representatives of the seeding states, with
out regard to the merits of the amendments
themselves or the necessary legislation that
would follow from their adoption. This sort
of urfairness is manifested in other ways In
the article as the writer pursues his review
OF the political record OF Gov. Hendricks
He seems to have had moments in the
preparation of this review in which the
truth is uttered with seeming pleasure, and
then again directly contradictory utter
snce crops out, tinged with vindictive
enmity as If some one else chad put
that in" Speaking in one clause of Gov.
Hendricks's great popularity and strength
the writer ascribes them to his readiness
to forgive an injury, and his willingness to
beg the pardon of those he believes he has
injured" Then the enmity breaks out,
aud the allegation is Dlads that "his politi-
cal career is made up of false and unre-
tracted charges" He tells in one paragraph
that he Jointly canvassed the state for gov
eruor with Henry s. Lane, one OF the most
brilliant and forcible dabstors that ever In
diana produced, and then in another para
graph il represents Mr.. Hendricks as sneak
ing away, faint hearted, and fearing to
meet Gen. Tom Browne on the stump
Such are specimens OF the inconsistency of
this writer.
But that the reader may understand the full
design of this article, and properly estimate
its truthfulness, we may refer to one or two
glaring misrepresentation, that in view Of
the recent publicatio ms in the Sentinel and
Gszs:te touching the matter, must lead the
reader to conclude that the writer, de-
termined 20 make a political point,
grossly sacrificed the truth. That the false
hood may be perspicuous we quote from
the article the very words of the writer. The
reader of the article may justly conclude
upon the value of the record. The Latin
proverb is applicable here-''FdJsus ia 1trao
IdLslts az omnibus"
THE sHELBYvILLE SPEECH His second and
last utterance was the memorable speech made
at Shelbyville in 1853, two or three weeks after
Gazette has so recently published those parts of
liz which Mr.. Hendricks would now so gladly eX-
ABSTRACT al this Sims. Suffice to say that he not
only reiterated his former sentiments but adj
vsed deserters to resist discouraged enlist
menis; opposed tn draft; branded the employ
meat of negro troops as an insult TO the army; ;
hooted at Lincoln's proclamation abolishing
slavery, and prophesied that the South would
win the day unless a compromise was effected
in which additional guarantees should be given
TO secure to IL its constitutional rights. These
were Mr.. Hendricsss sentiments in 1853. He
never intended they should get into print, but
thanks 10 the Gazette and its reporter, the types
got Them aud will keep them. OF late they are
giving him much uneasiness, but he Will not
publicly deny their correctness.
This is gross perversion of the truth. Both
the Journal of this city and the Gazette
have published extracts from that speech as
presented originally in the Gazette. But
neither in the speech quoted, nor IL the
comments of these papers, was there any
shadow of suggestion that Mr.. Hendricks
advised deserlers TO resist arrest. The bur-
den of their TRADE against the speech was in
the false report of the Gazette, that Mr..
Hendricks said he advised them not
TO 90 into the army, when his true
words we're that, es he was not going him
self, he had not advised others to go, and
the occasion of this declaration was for the
express purpose, Of clearly saying
in unmistsksble language, that, having
enlisted. they should return to
the ranks. The writer in the Ga
zstte now says that he "sdvised deserters to
resist arrest" This is wholly and unquali-
fedly false, in word and spirit; and, to give
the fslsehood greater weight, he says that
Mr.. Hendricks will not publicly
deny the correctness of the asser-
ton. Mr.. Hendricks does deny
this, and it was lately set forth in the
iafi hat
could not have escaped the attention of the
writer. that which Mr.. Hendricks did say
on that occasion. He neither advised against
enlistments, nor advised resisting arrests
The character of any man may bt
blsckened and ruined, if open anC
unqualified falsehood is to b
unspariogly used. Yet political enmiGy re-
sorting 10 this will spread broadcast over The
whole land fslsehood that no retrsctior
can follow and wholly correct.
Again, this writer sets forth that Mr.. Hen
bricks addressed a meeting in Seymour
when a hand DILL of rebellious tone wa
issued to called the people together. Mr.
Hendricks was not present at that meeting
and had nothing whatever to do with it.
The Sentinel can not undertake to follow
up all the false and equivocal declarations o
this untruthful record. The spirit OF th
whole article is as mean its alleged fact
are false. 1t is an attempt made to damsg
and blacken a political record than which
there is none more fair and repu
table among the statesmen OF tn
ountry. Men Of narrow and small
intelligence can not appreciate that quslit,
OF mind which calmly surveys the Who'll,
bearings of a political problem and acts will
reference to future contingencies as well a
present emergencies. With such men tn
blatant Rawlings of a denagogue tina
swings out into the current OF popu
lar opinion, making a noise lit