The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-08-22
DIR. LEONARD'S MISTAKE,

DIR. LEONARDS MISTAKE.
| The entrance OF man like DR.. Leonard into
active partisan politics must be regarded as UNI
fortunate, both for himself and for society
! BY the nature Of his calling as a preacher he
has for long years been accustomed to dog
Office have interposed to save him from serious
opposition and heated controversy. A minis
ter of the gospel occupies a peculiar position.
His wishes are seldom crossed, and his views
even if not always accepted, not often
tagonized. He has his own way to degree
not vouchsafed man in any other profession.
Theresult is man unfit to patiently engage in
a heated fight like political campaign, where
there are blows to be taken as we'll as given.
| The bitterness, the acrimony Of such strug-
! gle, although we'll understood by old cam
paigners, arc often too much for the limited
patience OF the preacher In the very first
step Of accepting a nomination the preacher
politician Is likely to make a very serious mis-
take, in not realizing how infallibly certain it
will be that all of his weak points, his pecca-
dilloes, will be laid bare during the canvass.
Offonses that in others would be no offense at
all are quite certain to come to the
surface, and be used against him for
what they may be worth. A man
| familiar with the ms and outs of politics
anticipates all this, and il his flaws are serious
declines to attempt canvass in his own
behalf But if they are trivial lie accepts a
nomination, confident in the expectation of
explaining them or Of making them appear Of
no consequence.
DR. Leonards mistake was in accepting a
nomination by the Prohibitionists when he
! should have known that his record as a strict
! temperance man was not water-tight Had
not past immunity made him careless, he would
have known that the fact that he had once
cured his dyspepsia by the use of toast and
ale would be almost certain to come up Not
realizing tli3 he accepted the nomination
and entered the campaign, preaching with all
|
vehemence in denouncing the Republican
party for the benefit of the Democratic soon
stirred up feeling against him, as man I'M
grateful for what the Republican party had
done and attempted to do in Ohio in the way
of temperance legislation, in every step of
which it was opposed by DR.. Leonard's pres
ent allies. It was this, as much as any
thing else, that brought forth the
story of his having once fallen back
on beer as a remedy, an offense
in itself that is no offense. Here the reverend
gentleman lost his head. Feeling that an
| honest admission would cause him to fall in
the respect Of his special admirers and hurt
him in his canvass, he inconsiderately and
heatedly declared the story ''an Infamous lie."
It is doubtful if the issue would have been
pressed, or if pressed, that it would have
done him harm, had he ignored it or honestly
admitted its truth. But his peremptory de-
NAL compelled the gentleman who had inno-
Gently given currency to the story to vindi-
cate himself, which he has done in
a way that admits Of no doubt of
his sincerity, while DR.. Leonard now
qualities his denial by saying he has no recol-
lection of using the remedy" at camp-meet-
ing We have, then, as result of the preach
ers candidacy, an issue of veracity between
him and member Of the same denomination,
whose reputation for integrity is certainly as
good as that of DR.. Leonad.
Outsiders can easily understand how the
Prohibtionist candidate could so far forget
himself as to give The lie to an honest man.
The impulse to deny presumed harmful
story was we may say natural. The
heat of the occasion set this impulse
into sudden blaze, and it was
done before he realized what he
had done, and he was guilty of an offense far
more serious than that Of having used stock
ale as remedy for distressing malady. His
! accuser is a member of the same denonina-