The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1912-1984, 1912-06-07
Who's Had a Change of Mind2


Continuing the rough work start
ed by the would-be dictators OF the
Eighth Congressional district, who
met at Louisville short time ago IN
q sort of Guy Fawkes plot, and de-
cided who should represent the peo-
pie in congress this term, the DAN
vile Advocate comes a-screechlng
Wednesday with box car headlines
asserting that the Interior Journal
is defending dishonesty among poll
ticians and condoning violation of
pledges, and it tries to place the
blame for all the crime involved up
on the head of Congressman Harvey
Helm. All this in reply to the l. J.'s
remarks concerning the alleged
Sensational charges" which the Ad-
vocate pulled on the congressman
on Monday.
To begin with, the Interior Jour
nal stated before, that it knew moth
ing of the premises then, and not
withstanding its lengthy screed, the
Advocate even now admits that 1t
sis not posted as to these charges"
vet it attempts to take them up IN
detail and would have .one believe
that every word it utters is inspired,
though confessing at the outset that
it is still mot posted" about the
matter. Perhaps there really is
some "inspiration" but of anoth-
er kind, the kind that caused the
Advocate to loudly champion the
candidacy of Mr.. Adams against
Gov. McCreary for the nomination
for governor last year.
Now. however, the Interior Jour
nal is posted and it is in position to
state emphatically that any state
ment or any charge that Congress
man Helm made a promise or pledge
10 anyone, not to be a candidate fOl
Congress or to center the present
race" as the Advocate puts it, Is
a base misrepresentation and a per-
version of the truth, and such is in
dicative of the unfair character OF
the arguments that are being trump
ed mp to injure Mr. Helms candid
acy. and the extremity TO which
the opposition is compelled TO re-
sort to bolster up its losing fight.
The Interior Journal at no time
has defended dishonesty" or has
ever sought to condone the violation
of pledges on the part Of parties OF
candidates. Can the Advocate
truthfully say as much9 The ]. j.
merely asserted that if Congress
man Helm had told some one at
some distant time that he might
not be a candidate again" he had a
perfect right TO change his mind
Where is any defense of a pledge
violation in that, when We did not
even base our suppOsition upon tho
premise that Helm had pledged him
self not to be a candidate again2
As we said before, Congressman
Helm has positively made no prom,
ises or pledges of any sort not t
be a candidate in the forthcomin,
primary, and we defy anyone to sa,
that he has, and furthermore, no
out VI WI litlui OppOutuls VII
make any such charge. True, tn,
Advocate admits that il is mo
posted" yet thinking people will Sc
riously question the authority of tn,
Advocate TO so confidently discus
question concerning which it i
Systematically ignorant.
Further along. the Advocate de
flies the Interior journal TO shoy
anything that Congressman Helm
has accomplished" and by insinua
ton and innuendo would endeavo
10 make its readers believe that h
has been a nonentitv and failure il
the lower house Of congress. Won
der if in this instance, too, the AID
vocate is taking hearsay and is "no
posted" or is merely guessingi
Funny that the Advocate Shout,
have had such remarkable chang
of mind about Congressman Helm
service TO the people.
Al u