The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1871-09-23
The Cause.

Warmoth and Mr.. J.. A. Walsh.
This correspondence" was caused
by the publication in the New Or
leans Republican of
A CARDFROM GOVERNOR WARNOTH.
New Orleans, Sept. Z, 1871.
Editor Republican:
In your article headed "Mr.
Wa]sh's Testimony" YOU do the
Lieutenant Governor-Who did VIC
lcnce to the truth in almost every
other statement in his long letter.
one slight injustice in saying "that
Mr.. Dunn has not repG".ed him
Walsl) fairly" Mr.. Walsh, in his
card to the New Orleans Times of
the 1ith Of August, after admitting
that he ot1e.e ed me fifty thousand
dollars tosiGnthe Nicolson pavement
bill, says:
"Ihe Governor was of the opinion
that his signature to the bill, cOn-
sidering the large profits, was worth
seventy-five thousand dollars to me.
and a promise to pay him the further
sum of two and one half per cent of
the net profits.'
Upon which Lieutenant Governor
Dunn bases his charge contained in
"item No. II of his letter rs fol-
lows:
"Item No. 1.-Governor Warmoth
demanded as the price Of his official
signature to a Legislative act, known
as the Nicolson pavement bill, sew
enty-tive thousand dollars, and two
and a half per cent of the profit arts
ing from the contract contemplated
on said bill. This demand for money
was made by his excellency on Mr..
John a. Walsh, representing the
bill, and was declined. Mr.. Walsh
is a respectable and wealthy citizen
of this city, and has published, with
out denial from his ex~cellencv. the
facts herein alleged in the city
press"
Now, l think Mr.. Dunn is in a
measure justified in his language.
assuming that he believed the state
ment Of Mr.. Walsh to be true. |
would not intrude myself on your
courtesy but TO the fact that Mr..
Nalsh's statement has been repeated
by both Mr.. Speaker Carter in his
card and Lieutenant GovernorD Dunn
in his letter to Mr.. Greedy.
And I now affirm that John A.
Walsh called Oh me- to urge my
signature to the bill in question. In
refusing compliance with his re-
quest, [ gave him the reasons en-
bodied in my message to the LcgiS-
lature disappearing it. After this.
he said he was authorized to offer
me $4,000, and one-sixth of the net
proceeds Of the contract. to which I
responded that | was SURPRISED he
should presume, knowing me as he
did, to make me such an offer. He
that he did not believe |
could be induced to take it. but
thought that no harm was done by
nle~enting thee terms in accordance
with his au;hO ity from the parties
Interested and he finally left, APP
}arently mortified at having done so
neana thing, and with his ears burn
ng at my rehdke. He has since
not once only, but many
lines, that he had made me this
'tfer and that I refused it, and "tAot
10 pecuniory consideration wAatercr
Gould influence me to sign the BILL" ;
70 s%nbstantiate this I refer to +
John c. Sinnott, of Sinnott :
I Adams; Mr.. John Taylor, a prin-
ipal proprietor in the Nicolson pav- g
NC patent, A. W. Smith of the :
Hospital ; W. L. Catlin, !
hen in commercial co-partnership 7
With Mr.. Walsh, and to my then
ecretary, MT. T. c. Remick, who y
7as in the adjoining room and heard q
he conversation above referred to :
etween Mr.. Walsh and myself. q
[ assert Mr.. Walsh's statement to ',
Q a willful and malicious falsehood. '
DELIBERATELY c%oncocted for the pur- \
ose of injuring me, and he can not T
'uthfully say that his card does not =
the language employed by Il
lieutenant Governor Dunn. =
Very respectfully, +;
II. c. WARMoTH. y
Since receiving the above card
ON the Governor, we have received
Re following from Mr.. Jonathan
aylor, the owner of the Nicolson
lvelnent patent for this State. and
le principal incorporation of the
'lebrated Nicolson pavement bill. -
Editor Republican,: p
New York City, Sept 3, 1871.
ditor Republican: 81
| wish to state to you, for the sake z
truth and in justice to Governor ar
'armoth, what [ know in reference
the signing of the Nicolson pave H
ent bill. -
John A. Wash informed me last ~
inter that he had offered Governor /
'armoth fifty thousand dollars to LEI
gn the bill; that the Governor sta II
that he acoWld not sign the bill for a"
g consideration whaterer that no -
pecuniarV or otherwise,
induce him to sign q bill: that
a bad precedent for the State
large to pay for improving a street
the city of New Orleans. Mr.. of
alsh further stated to me that if rec
e bill was a proper one the Gov pr!
nor would have signed il at the