New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1859-06-10
WHAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

The Delta maintains that it always has been "inde
pendent in regard to municipal politics. That may
be 30; but in the recent municipal contest Il has
shown itself eindependent in other respects II has
been independent Of history independent Of well
known facts, and proudly independent In the mat
ter Of differences to be drawn legitmatey from the
language it employed. oh, We presume there is not
man, woman or youth, in the city of New Orleans
capable OF reading and understanding, who does not
thoroughly understand and duly appreciate the pecu
liar nature and character Of the Deltas independ
ence.n m - 3s7
1 10 it, principal article yesterday morning, mainly
addressed TO the Crescent it speaks of our forget
fitness Of the history of this city for the last ten
years. Now, we are somewhat noted for retentive
memory but If this were not the case the above i'm.
Piled reproach would come with illgrace from any
one Of the three principal present conductors Of the
Delta. We have been in New Orleans all the time,
and have never sought our fortune elsewhere. One
Of them within "the last ten years" has edited pa
per in Cincinnati another in New York, and another
in Baton Rouge! It strikes us, and we presume it
win strike others the same way, that we, as regular
standbya, as permanent citizens, who cannot be IN
duced to desert New Orleans under any circumstances
ought to be about as well posted as those who flee
away whenever it is thought profitable opportunity
presents ITSELF However, we will cease this mere in
cidenta mention, it has little to do with the main
object Of this article.
With the Deltas assumption that it was the first to
advocate the Consolidation Of the city We have moth
ing to do. It has no bearing upon the question now
at ISSUE But seems to that If the editors Of the
Bulletin, Bee Picayune ETC., should look over their
old files, the fact would be made apparent that when
tho nf
branches Of the Legislature, it received warm and
influential support.
With these remarks, we will proceed to correct
another material blnnder OF the Delta. In the arti
Gle referred to, speaking Of ts persistent struggles
against the actce of partisan municipal contests
1t says:
ton, We advocated an Independent Citizens ticket
from which all politics excluded. That ticket
embraced as Aldermen such men as James Robb
William 2. Converse, Arnold Harris, E. W. Sewel
and Capt. James Stockton, W. A. Gasquet and DR..
Labatut, W. G. G. Claiborne and J. ]. Lugenbuhl-
gentlemen Of both political parties-and in vote of
ten thousand succeeded over regular partisan Wing
ticket
Now, any stranger to the facts of the case would
infer from the foregoing and very naturally, too as
no other inference could be drawn, that, in March,
l852-the election referred to occurred on the 22d
the Delta had actually advocated an independent"
movement, which had been successful
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Nothing
could be wider Of the mark. A more wrong impress
sion could not possibly be conveyed. The very re.
verse Of what the Delta would have implied is the
case. We will tell the public the naked facts. In
March, 1852, instead Of the independents succeed
ing, the regular Wing ticket very generally tri.
umphed. A Wing Mayor was elected. So were
Wing Comptroller, Wing Treasurer, Wing Sur
veyor and Wing Street Commissoner-all regular
nominees Of the Wing party A large majority of
the gentlemen elected to the Common Council were
regularly nominated Wing candidates, which made
The Common Council, politically speaking, Wing
Common Council, and which also made the Wing
riumph complete. This plain statement of incon-
rovertible historical truths completely annihilates
he inference the Delta would have prevail among the
ublic, that il was ever connected with an "inde-
endent" or reform" municipal movement which
ucceeded