The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-12-18
SHEPARD AND HIS ASSAILAETH.

1t was q very sorry trait of human
nature that was made conspicuous at
the trial of O case in a New York court
last week in which Mr.. Elliot F. Shepard
was defendant and one Gray. a former
business manager of Shepard's paper,
plaintiff in a suit for breach of contract.
The suit was such a n as any business
mar might become involved in without
blame necessarily attaching to him,
and one in which the public could
ordinarily have no ann of interest.
1t had no interest in this case, but
Mr.. Shepard having unfortunate
ly incurred the dislike of GER
tain persons was made the target
for ridicule and abuse by lawyers and
newspaper editors to an extent that casts
discredit upon members of both profess
sions. Mr.. Shepard has several marked
pe~culiarities, one of which is that of
making rather loud religious professions
and OF obtruding his pious convictions
upon public notice in a way that some
people find offensive. Col. Robert G..
Ingersoll is one of these. Mr.. Ingersoll
does not acknowledge the right of any
man but himself to exploit his views on
religion. especially if those views are of
the orthodox variety. This being the
case, Mr.. Ingersoll, who was attorney
for plaintiff, manifested a peculiar ami
mostly towards the defendant, who had
succeeded, almost as we'll as himself, in
securing celebrity by advertising his
personal opinions on Christianity. 1t
was one thing for the prophet of infidel-
ity to make his living by holding the
highly reprehensible one for Mr.. Shop
ard to print a text of Scripture every
day at the head of his editorial page and
to otherwise celebrate what he believes
to be the word of God. This. at least.
must be supposed to be Ingersoll's
thought. On no other theory can his
nagRing of the defendant, his personal
and insulting illusions and insinuations,
his dragging in of irrelevant issues
tending to cast discredit upon Shepard,
be accounted for. There is reason to
believe that he would not have dared to
SO browbeat and mock at any other New
York citizen of equal business and So
cial standing.
The newspapers aided and abetted
InRersoll by publishing every detail of
the trial in which any dishonorable re-
Election was cast upon Shepard. and by
giving particular prominence to his
cross-examination by Ingersoll; they
also gloated editorially over his discom-
future. The papers, of course. are not
influenced by the motive ascribed
to lngersoll, nor can it be supposed
for a moment that they are instigated
by professional jealousy (perish the
thought!). They base their course
ON the ground that Mr.. Shepard
is a Pharisee. But, admitting that
all the charges are true-that Shepard
has no moral right to advertise his re-
lieion; that he is a hypocrite and a hum
bug, and a "Rilded f~ool"-does it be-
come these excellent lawyers and ed
itors, who set themselves up as censors
to unite in an effort to humiliate hin
and to place upon him the stigma oil
rascality? Mr.. Ingersoll. who poses be-
fore the world as IN example of the
graces of paRanism, hardly commend:
himself or his principles to lovers OF
fair play when he forgets to be a gen
tleman: and the editors who object II
Shepard's transformation of his paper
into q semi-religious organ show little
of that tolerance and breadth of mind
of whose possession they boast. Their,
are people who see defects. many ant
~grievous. in other New York papers, bu'
they would not consider themselve,
thereby justified in prosecuting publish
ers and editors.
And after all the combined effort t.
humble Mr.. Shepard in the ayes of til,