The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1884-08-13
TIE ISSUE OF PRIVATE CHARACTER

The Buffalo Scandal Discussed by n Re-
publican and an Ex-Governor of Kansas.
The following editorial is taken from the
Emporia (Kan.) Republican, written by Its
editor and proprietor, Ex-Governor G. V.
Eskridge, of that State:
The newspaper press is very extensively
copying and commenting on stories, recently
published by the Buffalo Evening Telegraph
and the Cincinnati Enquirer, defamatory of
the private character of Governor Cleveland.
We have relrained from taking any part in
this expose CT alleged licentious conduct on
the part of the Democratic nominee for Pres
ident for the same reason that we have re-
Trained from discussing alleged iDdiscretiOns
On the part of the Republican and Prohioi-
tiOn candidates, and we allude to the matter
now for the purpose Of considering, free
from partisan and personal prejudice, the
prOpriety and policy of making attacks
upon the private character of candidates for
Office, unless supported by testimony at least
as strong as that required by the Supreme
Court of Kansas in case of alleged violation
of the pIOhi0itOry law, the ground of oppo-
sition to their election.
It is assumed that the moral condition of
q people is very largely dependent upon that
Of its rulers, and that as in this country
public officers, though elected and removed
by the popular VIII, are virtually the rulers
of public affairs, the more exalted the Off
cial position the more necessary it is that it
should be filed by men of exemplary habits
and spotless reputation for private virtue Is
well as official integrity. 1t is, therefore,
claimed that the private or even bY-gone
and discarded immorahties OF Presidential
candidates are matters Of grave public con-
Germ, forming fit subjects of public inquiry
and discussion, and hcentious and democrat
izings conduct if it can be brought to
light, should be dragged out of its
concealment in order that the moral
sentiment of the community may defeat
the election of any candidates who fail to
successfully defend their private characters
from defamatory reports. The private lives
and actions of candidates are to De inquired
into; their family, business, moral and re-
Iigious affairs, from youth up, are to be dill
igently searched for evidences of discredita-
bic, dishonest, dssipated, licentiOus or 9TH
erwise offensive acts; fer all of which they
are to be held accountable at the bar of pn-
litical Justice, and the moral, the upright
and the virtuous candidates only are to be
elected. Who would object to this
righteous though stern canon. and what
party is entitled to plead political neces-
sity, material interests, platform issues
nominations already effected or other con-
siderations in lieu of the indispensable
qualification of spotless biographies on the
part of it's candidates for public office? Why
is private morality less important attri-
butte than official integrity? Why should
not candidates be stripped to the naked skin,
every sore and scar exposed to the public
view, and only such as are found free from
defect or blemish in private as well as in
public character be considered fit competi-
Tors for the suhrages Of moral and religious
people?
1t is well that the discussion of private
scandals has been opened, if it had to come,
at this early stage of the campaign. The
accused parties have time to deny, defend or
explain the charges brought them, and the
public has time to consider the nature and
probable truth of the charges, and give them
the weight 70 which they are entitled as
campaign issues.
It is a matter of history that the private
character of a large number of Presidential,
as well as other candidates for public offices
in the United States have been in the iudg.
me1itk OF succeeding years, grossly calum
mated in the heat of partizan discussion. II
is exceedingly probable that the private
lives of George Washington, Alexander
Hamilton and Daniel Webster, as instances
of the question in hand, were fully a.
amenable TO criticism as the private lives oil
James G. Blaine, Stephen Grover Cleveland
and John 7. St. John. It was the standard
eontemporaneous charge against the father
of his country that a comedy white
domestic was not safe in his own man
sion against his Illicit advances. and this
propensity was currently reported to be q
source of much disquietude TO the saiHted
Martha, and the only cloud in her domesti
horson. The story sounds absurd now, bu
il was persistently repeated in those day..
It was charged against Alexander Hamilton
that be admitted rather than submit to fur
theT blsekmaiI that he had carried on an