The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-22
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
Jason B. Brown Answers Senator Bell.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journsd:
The Journal of the 10th inst. publishes
what purports to be an extract from an in
teryiew with Senator Bell, recently pub
lshed in the Fort Wayne Journal, which in
teryiew reflects upon me. l would take no
notice of it were it not for the fact that news
papers of both parties have unknowingly
done me injustice by taking Bells statement
of the trouble he had with me as being true;
and further, that he has seen fit to publish in
one of his city papers statement by way OF
an interview, which Is as false as he is hypo-
critical and contemplate. The trouble
apparently grew out of an effort upon
the part of some Democrats to redistrict the
State for congressional purposes 1t was
said by some to be in the interest of Hon.
John E. Lamb. The original proposition
was to take Crawford county out Of this dis
trict and attach Sullivan county to Lambs
district l at first objected to it. Mr.. Lamb
came to see me about the matter, and in a
very kind and gentlemanly manner told me
that it was the only way that his district,
which he thought was unfairly constructed,
could be relieved. 1 told him that I dis
liked very much to see Crawford
county taken from this district, but
that if nothing else could be done
to relieve the district would consent to it,
and that, in any event, 1 would support any
bill that the Democratic party agreed to.
Mr.. Lamb treated me kindly and politely,
and was anxious to assist him. if | could.
Afterward | learned that the proposition was
also to take Jennings county out of this
district and that Bell was at the bottom of it.
T.. rff ,fer MI
Bells colleague, introduced bill to re-dis-
trict the State. Bell says it was done by
instructions of the Senate committee on
congressional apportionment. But Bells
statement in this regard is not true. The bill
had not been considered by that committee, or
by any Democratic caucus. | came into the
Senate while the bill was being read, not hay
ing any knowledge that it was to be intro
duced and supposed that it provided for
taking both counties out of this district In
this l WAS mistaken 1t only provided for
taking Crawford county out. Senator Benz,
of Crawford county, moved to reject the bill,
but upon Bells appeal to him Withdrew the
motion. l Immediately said that l renewed
it, and was speaking against the bill,
when Bell came to me and said,
Now don't get off on this matter.
/ am opposed to making any changes in the
dristricts, and none will be made. l will
take care of it." I said: "Perhaps you can
not do it, The caucus may agree TO the bill"
He said: at is Senator NulPs bill; let it GO"
i replied that l was under no obligations to
Senator Null, and was about to continue my
remarks against the bill when Bell came to
me and said that he wished he had his vote
back on my bill, referring to the bill provd-
ing for the reorganization of the benevolent
institutions. | asked him what he meant,
and said that desired no controversy with
him. He replied that there would be
none; that he always selected the
mil tuhA ha hoe
sizes, and always selected gentlemen. This he
repeated several times and finally arose and
said that | was drunk. At this lost my
temper, and retorted upon him substantially
in the language PUBLISHED at the time. OF
course the retort was severe and out of place
and | deeply regret on account of the Senate
and the public, as well as my own, the use OF
one or two of the expressions that made
But the retort was no more severe than his
provocation was indecent and unjust. All
who know me will agree that l would not
have used such language had I not, be-
cause of the provocation, lost control of my
self.
Bells statement that was drunk, and his
republication of it in his home paper, is
deliberate falsehood and SANDER, as the Senate
will attest He makes it, and has made it
only to shield himself and cast odium upon
me. But even if l were drunk it does not
become him to make mention of it, On the
first night of the lock in the Senate over the
metropolitan police bill he was beastly
drunk, and his conduct was absolutely indie
cent. His drunken conduct and Stiffness were
SO marked in the Senate on that night
that he was the subject of remark by all who
saw him. 1t was principally his conduct
that night that caused it to be published that
the Democratic senator's, with few excep-
tons. myself among the number. were all
drunk. He is one of that class of individ-
uals who go into hysteria at seeing another
1f In VII Of hi oh hn, s
principal proprietor. The newspaper publ
cations of the next morning, as well as the
Senate, will attest the truth of this state
ment.
The motion to reject Senator Nulrs appor-
tionment hill was carried but after had
to reconsider the vote by which
1t was rejected and my motion was adopted;
but neither Bell nor anyone else ever called
up the bill.
This is not the first quarrel that Bell has
provoked in the Senate. He did the same
thing two years ago with brother senator.
and afterward attempted to apologize and
sneak out of it,
1 felt, and still feel that owe an apology
to the Senate. l desired to make that apology
to the Senate, and consulted several senators
of both parties on the subject Their ex-
pressions were universal that should not do
it; that Bell deserved all that he got; hence
l offered no apology to the Senate, and none
was asked or demanded OF me-
AS to my in any manner offering to apollo
gize to Bell, | never did so and never will do
so. He is not fit subject to apologize to for
anything. did say to some senators that I
deeply regretted what had occurred, and if
he of his own volition would withdraw the
provocation, 1 would withdraw what had
said. AS to his saying that he returned
word to me that | was political and
personal prostitute" it is as base a
lie as was ever uttered No one
ever conveyed such intelligence to me,
and do not think that he ever authorized
any one to do so, for his word in the last In
diana Senate was much below par.
Let us for moment see who is "polit-
ical prostitute" When the metropolitan
police bill was under consideration he re-