The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-10
A SENTINEL CLIENT.

The Sentinel seems determined to make it.
self the attorney and defender of the scoun-
drels and thieves who committed fraud and
forgery upon the tally sheets in this county.
We have neither the right nor disposition to
interfere with this choice on the part of our
esteemed contemporary. If it prefers the
company of Coy, Bernhamer Span, Counsel
man, and the others who, with more or less
reason, as the case may be, are under suspicion
in relation to the infamous crime by which
two Offices were fagrantly stolen in the inter-
est of law breakers, instead of stauch, honor
able, law-abiding Democrats like Mr.. Hender-
son, Mr.. Conduit and others who are ear
nestly engaged in the effort to ferret out
the facts connected with the election for
gerry, we cannot and will not complain.
The only thing we can do, and must do, is to
expose its falsehoods and rebuke its persistent
misstatements made daily in behalf of those
whom it assumes to defend Take, for in
stance, what it has to say about Mr.. Ochil-
tACCJ Va 1Uuoh SoUutEt tuO AOIouldil VI Luc 1dIc
disgraced federal grand jury. To read the
Sentinel, one would think that Mr.. Ochiltree
was the greatest and truest man in all the
State, one against whom to utter word were
fiat blasphemy. Now so far as the Journal
has spoken of Mr.. Ochiltree we have told the
plain. unvarnished truth, not one word of
which he will dare responsibility to deny or to
challenge. While a member of the
grand jury in this city he was seen
in consultation with men against
whom suspicion was very closely directed as
being accomplices in, or having guilty knowl
edge of, the very crime which he was specially
charged with investigating. He was called
out of the grand iury-room by those whose
names were used in the evidence to which he
ought to have been an attentive listener.
These consultations took place so frequently
as to call forth no inconsiderable comment
from the members of the jury who noted his
frequent absences from their room, and of
others who saw him in questionable company
during the recesses of the grand jury. Pend
ing the session of the jury Mr.. Ochiltree Wis
tied his home in Rushville, and in public
meeting made a speech that stamped him as
bitter and dishonest partisan, to whom the
commission of the duty to investigate election
frauds, presumably committed BY. Democrats
in tho interests of Democrats, must neces-
sarily have been farce. The neighbors of
Mr.. Ochiltree-some of them at least-are not
so profoundly impressed with his virtues and
greatness as the Sentinel seems to be. Sew
eral of them sent their testimonials to the
Journal, which were printed after iudicious ex-
purgation-some of the expressions in which
the writers indulge not being such as We care
to make public. Mr.. Ochiltrees relations to
the grand jury, so far as his actions indicated,
were those of a partisan intent upon shield
ing the members of his party who might
be implicated by the evidence presented, and
in preserving the fruits of the crime TO the
thieves who perpetrated 1t and the scoundrels
who We're to profit by it. The excoriation
given the jury by Judge Woods was deserved
by no member more than by Mr.. Ochiltree
1t is, doubtless, the sting of the judicial lash
that has caused him to howl