The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-04-23
A DEFENsELEss DEFENSE.


By persistent effort We have smoked the
Times out of its attitude OF silence. Like
the criminal at the bar, after being Sd
thoroughly trapped in the meshes of its own
fslsehood, 1t had but two sources left, either
to plead guilty" or mot guilty" In an
evssive way il has chosen the latter alterna-
tive. The Times started out through its
columns and by correspondence to foreign
advertisers fairly claiming the earth"-tbat
1t had the largest Sunday circulation,
placing lis issue at over 1900, and other
claims as to its weekly equally as ridiculous
and false. After We have woven around il
facts that prove it most graceless and reck.
less liar, and by "dsmnable iteration in
each issue with cumulative evidence, it
was forced to at last break silence
yesterday morning and make q most
lame and impotent defense. For, as
Pope says, He who tells lie is not sensible
how great task he undertakes, for he is
forced to invent twenty more to maintain
that one" It's defense is on the line of that
OF criminals whose first basis is swept away
and change Of front is attempted. IL now
absndons the first claim OF the largest Sun
day circulation and rays it has the largest
combined daily and Sunday circulation, but
it is very careful now not to state that either
IS anywhere near 1900, but explains thst
the IA. 30 figures apply to one day only,
Sunday, April >. While this changes the
original proposition very materially we
knew the latter TO be as untruthfal state
ment ss the first. We believe it to be sus-
ceptible of proof that its entire Sunday
edition of the 9th inst. consumed but fifteen
bundles of paper, including the two eight
page supplementsand its outside fold of eight
pages. We get this from truthful persons
whose word has never been put in jeopardy
by such reckless statements as have
been recently made by the Times pub
fishers. The issue between the Sentinel aud
Times is plain enough, and can not be OBJ
scuTed by any side issue OF bluff or change
of pleading. The latter claims through its
columns and by correspondence that its
Sunday circulation was over IA, 100. We
say it is two-thirds less than that amount.
The count from its press contradictsits asser-
ton; the paper bills likewise; it's refusal 20
make affidavit is very ominous; the postal
department OF weights contradicts its claim
as to 1900 weekly circulation; and on their
face all its claims are dishonest
and unreasonable. But it asks
mutual inspection OF the books"
What would mutual inspection of the
| (Tines) books amount TO? II the man who
has the books in charge would publish
through his paper and by business cores
pondence unblushing falsehoods in the effort
to obtain business, would these books he
offers in proof contain anything but fabrica-
ton enough to apparently sustain his false
| hoods2 Would a criminal that has been sur
rounded by net work of proof of guilt be
allowed to isbricate evidence in any such
| manner Is this guileless writer proposes?
| We appeal to the press. That did not lie last
| Sunday morning. and can not be msnipu-
lated to lie in its behalf. The story the pres:
| told was for the second edition, .675 papers
| Add the 1000, too liberal estimate for the
fret addition, and we have total of 4 ,675
/ papers for the entire edition.
| The ridiculous claims and absurd antics oil
this foolpaper during the past few weeh:
hiss been the standing joke among Indian
| epolis newspaper men.