The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-19
NOT AN AMEND HONORABLE.


In yesterdays Sentinel appears one of the
most remarkable confessions which has ever
adorned the pages of modern journalism.
The Sentinel publishes letter from Mr.
VIM. Henderson to its editor and proprietor,
dated the 18th of October, 1887, stating that
on the 9th of that month a conspicuous
editorial article in that journal charged Mr.
Henderson with procuring Samuel E. Perkins,
for the sum of 800, to purloin copy of the
opinion of the Supreme Court, previous to it's
rendition, in litigation concerning the
water works, Perkins having access
to the chambers of the court
because mis- father was on the bench.
Mr. Henderson states in his letter that the
charge is in every particular false; that he
never paid to Perkins or to any other person any
sum of money to get an advance opinion of
the Supreme Court or of any other court, and he
refers to A. ". Hendricks and 0. B. Hord,
the companys attorneys, and to Mr.. John r.
Elder, president of that company, for
confederation, saying: ''The records of
the court and the honorable gentle
named will tell you that the water
works company never had but three cases in
the Supreme Court during Judge Perkins's
lifetime (37 Ind, 523; Al Ind, 364; 40 Ind,
1889 and that was at a period of time when
Judge Perkins was not a member of the
court"
Then follows this remarkable confession,
published for the first time in the Sentinel of
yesterday-Jan. II, 19ss-more than three
months after the date of Mr. Hendersons
letter:
'"The above letter explains Mr. Henderson's
position relative to the publication made in
the Sentinel JUST PREVIOUS TO THE ELEC-
TION. We very gladly grant him the of
our columns to present his denial of what he
considers an unjust attack. SO far as the
Sentinel is concerned, we desire to say that
the article referred to was based upon what
at the time appeared to be perfectly reliable
information, which now appears (from Mr..
Henderson, statement of facts) to have been
erroneous We wish to disclaim any malice
toward Mr.. Henderson in making the publica-
ton. and have 10 desire to pursue the matter
further"
So the Sentiners previous article was based
upon information which now appears from
Mr.. Henderson's statement of facts to have
been erroneous. But Mr.. Henderson's state
ment was made on the 18th of October, prior
to the election, and the Sentinel admits that
this statement satisfied the proprietor of that
paper that the charge against Mr.. Henderson
was untrue. What is the inevitable infer
enceP That the Sentinel, for party purposes
- l. - ~
this city, a member of its own party, most
serious SANDER, which it knew from its own
statement to be entirely false. The good
name of Mr.. Henderson was just as precious
editor of the Sentinel could possibly be to
himself. Yet, for political purpose, the
Sentinel permits this falsehood to be spread
throughout the State uncontradicted, though
it knows from Mr.. Henderson's statement. as
it now admits, that this libel was wholly
without foundation.
What must the public think of a newspaper
which thus confesses in its own columns that
it is willing to permit a calumny upon an
honorable gentleman to remain uncontradic-
ted for months to meet political necessities?
But even this compulsory repentance is bet
ter than none at all. 1t will, at least. enlight-
en- the readers of that paper as to the motives
which prompt the political calumnies that fill
its columns.
The Sentinel concludes 1--WE wish to dis
claim any malice towards Mr.. Henderson in
making the publication, and have no desire to
pursue the matter further" We should think
not! This retraction is not the amende honora-
BILE; it is something far less, if, indeed, it is
not an aggravation of the original offense.