New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-03

falls to with very ugly and very I'M
likely statement of facts, which we propose
to dispose of in way to convict the Times
OF being both badly informed and wickedly
disposed, not only toward the Governor,
but toward considerate and good
natured contemporary.
The REPUBLICAN,, to be just, as it
always seeks to be, must confess that 1t
was partially to blame in having accused
the Tines of being interested in the Cres-
cent City Waterworks bill, when such was
not the case, the interest being in another
measure which is probably quite as great
an evil This was a clerical error, as the
Times discovered, for it Immediately de-
MED that the proprietor was an incorpora-
tor in the Levee bill, which was a charge
that we had not advanced.
A mere denial OF its interest in the
Waterworks bill was all that was necessary
on the part of the Times, since. that was
the only matter at issue; but, instead Of
combining itself to the defensive. as it
should have done, it assumed the aggres-
sive, and responded by charging that par
ties interested in the REPUBLICAN were i'll
terested in the obnoxious law as incorpora-
tors. And by this means it sought to i'm
plicate and discredit the Governor of the
State, which reminds US of the caution
which the Times administered to its own
partisan friends, that to make unjust and
improper charges does no injury to the
intended victim, but usually recoils upon
the party who commits it.
Now, let us dispose of the gist of the
charge that parties interested in the RE-
PUBLICAN were interested in the Water
works bill. In the first place there is no
evidence that such was the case. for the
original bill, which is the only document
that can establish that point, has never
been made public, and its provisions and
incorporators can only be conjectured.
There was pretended law published in
the German Gazette, purporting to be the
Crescent City Waterworks bill, but it was
SO full of errors, omissions and additions
that even it's friends admitted to its total
unworthiness as copy of the original.
And yet this bogus document is the
authority that the Times uses to establish
its assertion against the parties whom it
charges with being interested in the law.
As these parties are constantly classified
as the friends and supporters of Governor
Warmoth by the Times, and as the Cover
nor vetoed the bill and suspended the
officer who attempted to fasten it upon
the people by an extraordinary manoeuvre
we submit if the Prescriptions are not
against the accuracy Of the statement
made by the Times. If the names of
Messrs Fish and Hahn are in the original
bill, of which we have no evidence as yet,
we are authorized to say, most positively,
that they are there without their contri-
vance, and that the law never received
their support, either upon its passage Or
before the Governor of the State. We
suppose this is sufficient to dispose of
that branch of the subject.
How the Times can reconcile its effort
to connect the Governors name with a
which he not only vetoed, but
which he assumed great responsibility
in defeating, with an honest relation Of
current history, is past our understanding.
And how it can do this after having per-
sistentiy denounced Governor Warmoth
for doing the very act which not only as
sisted to defeat the obnoxious law, but
which taught subordinate officers to know
and feel that they could not usurp author
ity and iniure the public service without
being called to account, is inconsistent
with any other theory than that it was ig-
norant of the facts of the case, which We
10 not believe, or that it was willfully
wicked in asserting charge which it
knew to be untrue and indefensible. Such
4 perversion of the truth is an injury to
the party committingit it.