The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1878-06-12

prudence demands an outspoken confession
Of the fact, that something may be saved
from the wreck of the radical party The
New York Times has taken the initiative
tep, and the small fry organs will doubtless
take up the line of march in the same direc-
ton. The Times says:
Mr.. Sherman's authorship of the letter attri-
buted to him is not disproved by the revela-
ocatiOn, with the document In his hand, con-
trasts so painfully with his positive declara-
lions to newspaper correspondents, and his
valiant challenge to the committee, that he
must now establish the falsity of the paper or
submit to the unfavorable Interpretation
which the circumstances suggest. Mr.. Stanley
Matthew'S position is worse. The more clearly
Anderson is proved to be a scoundrel, the more
the Ohio senator is damaged by the confiden-
tial relations that are eXempllfed IN his letters.
The Nash agreement, infamous on its face, was
in Mr.. Matthews possession. Other things
growing out of Intercourse with Anderson must
have familiarfzed him with that mans true
character. Yet Mr.. Matthews introduced him
TO General Harlan as worthy OF confidence,
recognized his claim to substantial reward,
and eXerted himself strenuOusly, again and
again, during period extending over months,
TO satisfy AnderSon's demand. The offer OF
the Funchal consulate was the product of Mr..
Matthews influence with the president or Mr..
EYarts, or with both. We are not required TO
believe one sentence that Anderson has uttered
to form judgment as TO the part played by
Mr.. Matthews. Unless he can prove that these
documents are forgeries, protestatlons in his
behalf will be in vain. The attempt TO explain
them away Is an insult 10 common sense.
And the public while branding Anderson as
he deserves to be. will not suffer legal quib-
ping 10 change the Ju1gment In regard 10 MI
Matthews for which his letters furnish ample
foundation.
This pretty efectually settles two of the
conspiratorS who helped, by forgeries and
perjuries, to elect Hayes. The Times, after
suggesting that the radical party desires fair
play for the two convicted felons, says:
But neither in their cases nor in the case OF
any other of its members who may suffer from
the inquiry in progress, is the party under the
slightest obligation To assume their burden, TO
make 1,self amenable for their conduct, or to
do violence to its moral sense in order that
they may be shielded from the consequences.
The very opposite Is the course which alone
the party ought TO pursue. 1he proposition it
Louisiana are the victims of fraud, not its per-
petratOrs. If IL be proved that "visitlng states
men" were privy To fraud of any sort, 1t must
party may temporarily suffer from the acts OF
individual members, in no way authorized to
speak i'm its behalf, but identified with ii in
the popular NINA. This mi ry VIII be inn
material If the party vindicate its integrity by
standing alOof from persons implicated, and
leaving the truth to 90 its work. The instincts
as well as the interests Of the party are on the
side Of right.
We submit that from arrogance to whin-
ing plea for mercy the attitude of the radical
party is the most abject that was ever seen.
We hear DO more Of revolution or of Mexi-
canizing the government, but instead the
whine of whipped hounds. The radical
party is directly and entirely responsible for
the frauds in Florida and Louisiana, and the
peoples sense of justice will not permit the
party to escape the odium, indignation and
penalties it so justly merits.