Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 76, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 February 1909 — NO RETRACTION WHATEVER. [ARTICLE]

NO RETRACTION WHATEVER.

While no newspaper would be quicker to publish a retraction than The Democrat, if it had, through error made a false or misleading statement, yet this paper has always been so sure of its ground that in all these years it has never felt called upon to make a retraction of any statement that has appeared in its columns concerning an individual or of local or county affairs, and the following item which appeared in The Republican of yesterday, under the heading, “Withdraws Wholly False Statement,” is no retraction whatever. Following is the item referred to: Rensselaer, Ind., Feb. 20, 1909. An article in the Jasper County Democrat of this date, Feb. 20, 1909, relating an alleged incident at Cedar Lake, and which stated that a republican editor was seen carrying three bottles of beer in a hotel at that place and taking them into a drinking booth where a woman had no reference whatever to George H. Healey, the present editor of the Rensselaer Republican, also that an article in the same issue of the same paper that accused some one of chasing after women of oad character and hanging out at questionable places at night had no reference whatever to George H. Healey, the present editor of the Rensselaer Republican. Signed: F. E. BABCOCK. It will be noted that the above applies solely to Mr. Haaley; also, that it does not mention gambling, which was referred to in one of the items concerning editors in The Democrat. He did not want it thought that HE was the editor seen at Cedar Lake or that chasing after women referred to him, but admitted before witnesses to have played poker some while down at Indianapolis in camp with the militia and had also played some in Rensselaer, which amusement we believe is considered a criminal offense by our statutes, providing the playing was for money, and, as he was willing to believe that this might refer to him as well as some other republican editors, it is to be inferred that the playing was not altogether for the health. Now The Democrat regrets exceedingly its inability to get along with The Republican crowd. We

have passed hundreds of their slurs and dirty insinuations by without notice. We have refrained from public mention of the low, mean, spiteful and contemptible methods that have been resorted to to Injure us .in a business way—some of which are known to many of the most prominent business men in Rensselaer. In spite of our passing over muph of the malicious and false statements that paper has printed about us and its editors have told by word of mouth, it has continually “butted in” where It ha<j no business to; has misrepresented and aired our private affairs, time after time and attempted to hold us up to scorn and ridicule, and attack even our employes, and never once has its editors had the manhood to retract or apologize when shown by inconlrovertable evidence that their accusations were wholly false and unfounded.

In The Democrat’s replies to some of the more vicious of these attacks it has simply acted in selfdefense, a fact which readers of both papers are well aware. The public has no concern in the private affairs Of the newspaper editor any more than any one else, and, realizing this, we have gone ahead, trying to treat everyone honestly and fairly and attending to our own business, only occasionally, when goaded beyond human endurance, replied. In these replies we have always had the best end of it, for If there is anyone in Rensselaer open to attack on the very grounds that they have repeatedly and unfoundedly and maliciously attacked us, it Is the owners and editors of The Republican. Now just a few words concerning this Latest misleading statement. Mr. Healey called at The Democrat office Saturday and handed us a statement to sign exonerating HIM from being the republican editor mentioned in connection with this Cedar Lake affair. We declined to sign It, principally because we questioned his motive. He then made some of his stock-in-trade threats, quietly of course, but we still declined. After which he stated that he wante4 it so that his family would not think it was him. When it was put in this way, and as we did not have Healey in mind when we wrote the article, which was in reply to oneof the Republican’s dirty flings at us—and so far as we know he may never have been at Cedar Lake in his life—after making a few changes in same, and on his promise in the presence of witnesses to retract every false accusation he had made concerning us, we put our name to the statement.

As the article never charged that he was the editor referred to, it can only be conjectured that his bump of egotism is accountable for his thinking that everyone would at once jump to the conclusion that it was he who was meant. It said “a republican editor,” and while this may be disappointing to his vanity, we thought there were republican editors other than Mr. Healey. In fact some of them have lived in Rensselaer. As a matter of fact, Mr. Healey intimated that he thought he knew who was meant; said he had talked with this party and that the party said he was at Cedar Lake one day a year or two ago, and that he was watching a couple of Rensselaer boys to see that they didn’t get robbed in a game of cards that they had got into. At stray moments, when not playing the guardian angel, this party had made trips between the bar and the “beer stall” in the capacity of "dumb waiter” and on one of these trips a couple of Rensselaer people DID see him come out of the. stall with some empty beer bottles)' DID see him go to the bar and turn In the empties and get two or three full ones and go back. But there was no woman there.” This was the story he told Mr. Healey, so the latter says, and the latter said he believed him. Concerning this guardian angel story we know nothing, but THE republican editor that the Rensselaer gentlemen told us about, and which they still affirm is true, came out of a beer stall in which there was a woman. We once read of an editor who printed in his paper that if a certain fellow didn’t quit hanging around his hired girl that he would publish him in his paper, and how the next day about a dozen men had called at the office and paid their subscription to the paper and told the editor “not to mind such little things as that.” If The Democrat had accused Mr. Healey of being the editor that was seen at Cedar Lake, or if he is the only republican editor who ever lived in Rensselaer, or the only republican editor elsewhere, past or present, then this might be considered a retraction, end not otherwise. The truth of the statement complained of can easily be proven. Also, The Democrat man assumes full responsibility for the publication of the Cedar Lake story, which was correct in every Important par. ticular.