The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1885-02-18
TEE SENTINEL AND MR.. COOPER


In several papers W thin q week have sp-
peared statements. claimed to have been
made by Mr.. John ]. Cooper, Treasurer of
State, that the manager of the Sentinel had
sought to borrow money from him. In one
publication the amount named by Mr..
Cooper was 50 500, and the use to be made
of it the purchase, by Mr.. Shoemaker, OF
some Sentinel stock held by another gentle
man. To other reporters the sum figured was
S.. OOO-wantsd for paying to banker. Still
other statements are rumored, but only those
printed are here referred to. Mr.. Cooper is
reported to have based on his refusals to
grant these loans (which, by the way, he
was never asked to make the action OF the
Sentinel IN favoring an investigation of the
Treasury.
When these statements first appeared in
print Mr.. Shoemaker, in denying them, ex-
pressed a disbelief in Mr.. Cooper's having
made them. Knowing that Mr.. Cooper
knew them to be false, it was anticipated
that he would deny them. He has
not done SO, but has, rather. with
variations whistled the tune again.
major (S5, OO0l to the minor (S2 500 key. 1t
would appear that be has sought to attribute
the SentinePs attitude toward the i1vestiga-
ton movement to personal spite on the part
OF the editor of the Sentinel.
Now had the Sentinel or Mr.. Shoemaker
made the applications for loans Mr.. Cooper
pretends, and had those applications been
H. fc,T,f
be SONS reason for his supposing the Sentinel
pre- JUDGED, by such an occurrence, against
him. But since he knows there was no
such occurrence, we must suppose him to be
telling these ghost stories merely to COM
promise the Sentinel with the members of
the Legislature and others.
We say to Mr.. John J. Cooper, State
Treasurer, that, when eounseling him to not
only consent to, but TO demand, an investi-
CATION, we believed we were counseling for
his good as a man and officer. We say to
Mr.. Cooper, to the Legislature and to the
Democracy Of Indiana, that when urg-
ing the Democratic majority in the Legis-
lature to mske the investigation. which the
Treasurer would not invite but sought to
prevent, we were urging that which we be-
lieved to be for the good OF the Democratic
party of the State. The proposition that the
situation presented to our mind was a SIM
pie one: if the affairs OF the Treasury were
in proper condition, neither Mr.. Cooper nor
the party would be injured by investigation.
On the contrary both would be triumph.
antiy indicated and the accusations of the
Republicans made to rebound upon them
selves
There is not one reader of the
Sentinel who will not agree that throughout
the discussion of the Treasury question we
have treated Mr.. Cooper with utmost cour-
tesy and consideration. Had personal spite
actuated our utterances we would hardly
have been daily asserting our entire conf
dence 10 his official rectitude. Mr.. Cooper
himself must surely use compound micro
scope to find an expression in our editorials
that has not savored of personal kindness TO-
ward him.
Ii is, then, with sincere regret that we see
the Treasurer departing from the upright
conduct for which We have given him credit,
in an endeavor to make it appear that the
Sentinel has been moved by personal antip-
athy 70 him rather than by patriotic
motives in the premises. We can not permit
the matter to pass unnoticsd. Having done
unreasonable harm to himself and his party
by his shrinking from an Investigation OF
his official trust, he would now seek to harm
his party paper by charging it with petty
personal motives in a matter in which the
welfare of the State Democracy was at stake.
Mr.. Cooper has blundered. He has misrep,
resented the Sentinel, and he knows it.