The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-02-19

Ii Is no unusual thing to see the arguments OF a
party upholding any contested question opposed.
Il is sometimes the case, though but rarely, that
they wilfully distorted and misrepresened, and
among these rare instances we are truly sorry to
have to class one Of onr contemporaries in this city
The important question of the reunion of the Mn-
inequalities under one general Government we have
honestly opposed, because we could see SO many
evils, and no good resulting from such an amalga-
nation We have thought and still think, the bene-
fits proposed by such reunion can be better and
more surely obtained BY proper Legislation, and the
main tenance of the present separate and ndepen-
dent administrations We are open to conviction,
but il must be by argument and sound reasoning /;
| not by many or few powerful names powerful in
wealth only, and certainly not by any such per-
versions Of truth characterized the article of the
Della yesterday morning in review Of our remarks
on Saturday.
That paper, in support Of what it may consider
the best interests of the city adduced the weIlknown
fact that the principal public buildings of the Sec
ond Municipality were erected between 1880 and
1885, and prior to the division of the city in the lat
ter year. We admitted the truth of the allegation,
but denied the inference which the Delta maniesty
wished to draw, or to have its readers draw, that
these buildings grew out Of the protection, under
the influence of the old City Government. We
contended-and all acquainted with the facts, and
not interested in perverting truth will admit-that
those great public edices OF which the Delta boast
ed were the result of causes extraneous from Mu-
nicipal Government, however they might be at
trbuted to the action of national administrations,
but which were so eminently disastrous, that no
well-wisher to the general prosperity of the city,
whether trinite unite, could ever wish their re-
newed action or influence
The Delta copies part Of article, just so far
it seemed to favor its project, but entirely
omits the latter part to which the first but the
introduction; and then boasts that we have admit
ted the very position for which they were contend
ing. We ask, even of opponents the sub
iect of consolidation, if any thing could be more
unfair and UNJUST and we hope that those who are
honestly seeking to know what is for the best in
terest of our city will examine the subject for
themselves and not be misled. That cause must
be weak one which is forced to rely such
means as the Delta seems to depend upon. If it
has no stronger bulwarks to defend its positions
than Misrepresentation Of the power Of its oppo-
nents, it may, and we trust WILL soon find itself
hors do combat.
The Delta contends that the principal buildings
of the city were erected between 1880 and 1896,
and therefore the consolidated form of Government
is the best. We contend and prove, that their
erection grew out of other causes, and in spite of
the old administration and the population of the
Second Municipality, having before them these
very public buildings of which the Delta boasts,
and on which it seems to rely, were almost unan-
mously in favor Of the separation into Municipal
ties. The conclusion, therefore, OF the Delta, which
charges us with stamping the memorial against
consolidation with untruthfulness, and calling on
the people to sign a memorial which gives an erro-
and unjust.