The Evansville Journal

We need hardly direct the attention of our readers to another card from Mr. Sorenson. They will find it plain and to the point. At least, we are quite certain that the friends of Sheriff Miller will so regard it. It was a bad day for him when the Courier set the blunderers—who once before made a shameful but expensive failure in attempting to convict a Republican official of malfeasance in office—at the heels of our worthy County Clerk. We presume Mr. Miller and his friends will need all the time between now and the election to make explanations.

Another Card from Mr. Sorenson.

After having been strongly solicited to retract or modify what I had said about Sheriff Miller's neglect of duty, and threatened with exposure of my own short-comings and transgressions if I did not, I expected something serious from the Courier on Saturday morning. Nothing came, however. It appears it took longer time before it could be hatched. Sunday but two. The first of these bears the ear-marks of its author, whom the Democratic party employs to do such work. He begins by asking questions. These can all be answered at once. If I have made any charge to any body, or to the county, not authorized by law, let them come and prove it. If I have made proper settlements with the county, ask the County Treasurer. Then comes his charge. Here it is: "We charge that Soren Sorensen, Clerk of the Courts of our county, has, ever since his administration began, had in his hands money belonging to other parties, which he has not paid over."

This charge is strong, and the beauty of it is, it is true. I have had, most of the time, money in my hands belonging to other people, and I have some now. And there is another beauty about it: Those it belongs to can get it when they call for it. It is there for them. I know whether I have it or not, and magistrates, constables, witnesses or any others, know that they can get it, and I know that no man ever had to call twice to get his money when it once came into my hands. There are exceptions to all rules, however. An editor in the Courier office at one time sent a written order for a fee I had collected for him, and I refused to pay it. I had a fee bill against him, and so with Sheriff Miller. I have some of his money and it is ready for him whenever he makes returns as required by law. The Courier's supposition that I might owe Miller if a balance were struck is "weak bluff."

The real state of affairs is this: Miller's neglected returns amount to about $1,400, to offset against this, I have of his money, perhaps, $350, but over and above, and outside of all this, Miller had collected and forgotten to pay over to my office, a considerable sum, and it has been only by the most persistent dunning that I have got the amount reduced to about $100, where it now stands. As for my official conduct, if the Courier thinks my glass house is brittle, pitch in.

S. SORENSEN