Democratic Sentinel, Volume 13, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 February 1889 — “In Blocks of Five.” [ARTICLE]

“In Blocks of Five.”

The instructions of the court with regard to that Dudley letter let the Indiana politician off with a badly spotted reputation.—Pittsburg Dispatch (Ind. Rep.). People who remember CoE Dudley’s “blocks of five” are finding a coincidence in the fact that Gen. Harrison is just 5 feet 5 inches high.— Louisville Commercial (Rep.). Judge Woods of the United States Court at Indianapolis has decided, upon reflection. that there are no flies upon Col. Dudley. Let the bourbons rage and let the mugwumps imagine a vain thing. Judge Woods is right.— St. Louis GlobeDemocrat (Rep.). Dudley’s high crime hat been twice perpetrated on Indiana, and to-day he finds favor at the hinds of a Federal Judge which makes him a hero. Shall such conduct go unrebuked? If so, the boasted glory of a republic is but a name. Lafayette Journal (Dem.). J udgeWoods practically admits the charge against Dudley when in oi der to prevent his indictment, he says that the mere sending of a letter “containing advice io bribe voters or setting forth a scheme for such bribery, however bold and reprehensible, is not indictable.” New York Times (Mug.). Republican politicians about town are talking in a boasting way about “Judge Woods' nerve.” There is no question that Woods has nerve. It took nerve, and a good deal of it, to do the thing he did Tuesday. But it is the kind of nerve that honest men do not envy him.—lndianapolis Sentinel (Dem.). Dudley gets off through a defect in the law, and not because he isn’t guilty of the offense charged. The Indiana Legislature now in session is likely to pass a State law that will not let offenders of the Dudley type slip through its meshes so easily, but for the present Dudley can snap his fingers at a prosecution. —Philadelphia Times (Depi.). The question for the court to decide related simply to the technical guilt of the writer of the Dudley letter. For the rest we have to say, ns we have a rid before, that the Republicans of Indiana are in no way responsib'e for it, and that it did not figure in the campaign except as a club for the Democrats. If the letlerwas intended 4o conn el and advise bribery, it was never acted upon. The R. publicans of Indiana were not open to snch advice, nor under the necessity of resorting to such methods. They carried the State fairly and in spite of Democratic frauds. —lndianapolis Journal (Rep ). The latest news from Indiana indicates that «Col. Dudley will escape indictment. This is greatly to be regretted. Of course the politicians of both sides have been engaged in this crimin il traffic in votes, and the fact that the Republicans had by far the greatest amount of money this year enabled them to do the largest business. It is also true that the worst element among the Democrats are most open to bribery, and hence that party suffered severely. It is time for good citizens to lay aside the thin devices of campaign times and face the distressing fact that bribery and corruption prevail to an extent that threatens the very existence of the i epublic itself, and to agree on methods of reform. Springfield (Mass.) Republican (Mug.),