The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1871-03-18
Tire Side Issue.

We feel like DR.. Tatman, when one OF
those delegates approached him on the
subject, the other day in the legislature.
The Doctor referred him to bis oscns repre-
sentatives; said he knew nothing about
it--TJou,nal, Feb. is.
He calls this matter of opposition to the
partition of st. Landry a family quarrel
between Mr.. Durio and his partisans, and
SAYS that he feels much as DR.. Tatma1 did
when approached on this subject by a dele
gate from this place, and he referred him
to his own representatives: said he knew
nothing about it. Now, We have aSsuran-
ces that Doctor Fatman does know Some
thing about this measure, and that he op,
poses It. Besides DR.. Tatman is we'll
known in this Parish, and he has always
sustained a high reputation as a IA OF
intelligent culture and gentlemanly breed
ing;-and he surely does not consider
himself the representative only Of those
who voted for him. He understands better
than that the true relation existing be-
tween a representative in the Legislature
and his constituency and we feel assured
that his good breeding as a gentleman, is a
guarantee against rudeness to any person
approaching him on the business OF the
public, or even on the subject If his own
private affairs. Courier, Feb. %.
We happen to know something about
the truth of what we said in regard to DIR.
Tatman, as we were on the ground at the
time-the Courier to the contrary not
withstanding. IF you do not believe ii,
neighbor, ask some one who was present.
We never said DR.. Tatman was not oppos-
ed to the division of the parish. 1t was
singular, however, that he, their political
foe and a Radical, should be called on by
gentlemen of the pure faith to save them
from their friends journal March 4.
We thought that we could safely say of
the Doctor, considering his reputation, that
he understood better the true relation
existing between representative and con
stituency, and the courtesy due from one
gentleman to another than to recognize
the right to confer with him in relation
to matters affecting the interest of his con-
stituents, only in those who had voted for
him, and with such views to snub any
others. We thought that we could do this
without mourning the charge, that we
were guilty Of " barney" towards our re-
preventative. But the Editor of the Jour-
nal thinks otherwise, and he seems deter
mined that nothing in our article, that
seemed to- him complimentary to our, or as
our confrers would have it, his representa-
tive, shall be so construed by that gentle
man or his particular friend. -[Courier,
March II.
1t will be seen from the above
that we never said that DR.. Tatman
was u oson representative neither
did we state that he represented
himself to be the representative
only of his particular friends. 1t
has been said, and published too,
that the convention which nominal
ted candidates here last Autumn,
was packed; and consequently those
elected on the packed ticket. could
appropriately be claimed by the
conventioners as their oacn repre-
sentatives. We can not swear of
our own knowledge that the con-
ventien was packed, but members
of the convention have said So. All
we claim for DR.. Tatman is, that he
was not forced on the people by a
convention, but was elected by free
votes.
The Courier is we'll aware that it
denounced all opposers of the con-
vention ticket as Radicals; and
certainly DIR. Tatman came under
this head. The Courier, then, called
him a Radical. We say, therefore,
that it is strange a pure Democrat
ic-convention- Courier man should
60 to a Representative, called by
the conventioners a Radical, for
the purpose Of soliciting a favor,
rather than to one of his oaen regu-
larry elected convention representa-
tives. Ii there was any personal
feeling IN the matter, we know
nothing about it, and it has moth
ing to do with the question at issue.
1t will be seen from the first item
above, taken from the JOURNAL of
the 18th February, that this whole
subject is a side issue on which the
Courier has branched off. It is not
relevant to the original question of
dividing tfe Parish. It is simply
quibbling, and we do not care to
continue it.