The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-11
THE SENTINEL AND MR. COOPER

THE SENTINEL AND MR. COOPER
In several papers within a week have ap-
peared statements. claimed to have been
made by Mr.. John J. 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 s. 500, and the uss to be made
OF 1t the purchase, by Mr. Shoemaker, OF
some Sentinel stock held by another gentle
man. To other reporters the sum figured was
S5,o00-wanted for paying to a banker. Still
other statements are rumored but only those
printed are here referred to. Mr.. Cooper ia
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 fsvoring an investigation of the
Treasury.
When these statements first appeared in
print Mr.. Shoemaker. in denying them, ex-
pressed 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, whis,led the tune again.
In the repetition he drops from the
major (S5. Geo. to the minor (s2 500 key. II
would appear that he 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 Rad those applications been
refused. as Mr. Cooper prete3ds, there might
be some reason for bis supposing the Sentinel
pre- JUDGED, By such an occurrence, against
him. But since be knows there was no
such occurrence, We must suppose him to be
telling these ghost stories merely to CON-
promise tbs Sentinel with the members of
the Legislature and others.
We say to Mr. John ]. Cooper, State
Treasurer, that, when counseling him to not
only consent to, but to demand, an inYesti-
CATION, We believed we were counseling for
his good SIS 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 bat 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 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 ia his official rectitude. Mr.. Cooper
himself must surely use compound micro
scope to find au 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 endesvor TO make il appear that the
Sentinel has been moved by personal antip-
athy to him rather than by patriotic
motives in the premises We can not permit
the matter TO pass unnoticsd. Having done
imms ssurabls harm to himseli and his party
by his shrinking from an investigation of
hif official trust, he would now seek to harm
his party paper by charging it with petty
personal motives in matter in which the
welfare of the State Democracy was at stake.
Mr.. Cooper has Numbered. He has misrep.
resented the Sentinel, and he knows il.