The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1873-05-21
A Card.
ExANDRrA, La, I
May II, 1879. (

q olR-Wu lle Win extremely Teiuc
r tant to appear before the people in an.
= sort of a newspaper controversy, l an
constrained to do so now, in answer t,
an article in tho last issue OF the Dem
ocrat, lest silence should seem to Civ,
foundation and confirmation to an er
roneous impression, that would d,
great injustice to one who is nearly re-
lated to the writer, and which would
do scarcely less harm to yonr cores
po"dent than to the person primaril,
involved.
am informed that the impression
prevails in certain quarters that the
gentleman alluded to above, is the
"lormer Shareholder, secrssioinist and
strong Democrat n"w," who is spoken
OF by the New Orleans Correspondent
of the Cincinnati Times as the other
party to an interview on the 28th of
April, in which lie is reported as hav-
ing given that correspondent detail
cd aud erroneous account of the recent
difficulties in Grant Parish, interspers-
ed with certain Objectionable epithets
as characteristic and descriptive Of tie
parties engaged therein.
Now, sir, to certain persons in this
community, who strongly moved there
to, by avarire and personal hostility,
arc ever ready to believe and use to
the injury Of the parties concerned,
such circumstances as this, l have
nothing to say.
A fair statement will meet with in-
crednlity in their jaundiced view-but
to the fair-n,inded people of Rapides,
it is due that this statement should I've
nade-aud made with tile same pub.
'icit, that is employed in giving circu-
la'!on t" the slander.
In the first place, then, the ssformer
slave. holder, secessionist and Demo.
crat" who il pointed out in this com.
mnnity, was not in New Orleans on the
2stl' of April, the day upon winch the
letter VAS dated at New Orleans, and
in which he opens by saying 81 have
to day had an interview, &c." but was
at home in Alexandria, lie having re-
turned that day on the St. Mary, hay
ing left New Orleans on the 26th. So
that the correspondent in his first
words proves that this gentleman could
not have been the person interview ell.
1t is false that ''that Democrat" ever
at any time or in any place made use
of tie language reported in reference
to the participants in the Grant Parish
difficulties. l assert positively that he
did not ever refer to the parties en-.
gagged in any such offensive language.
This much of truth there may be in
The statement of the correspondent -
He may have heen present at some
time or place without the knowle,,c Of
the democrat" and have heard enough
of a conversation between himself and
others, which, though, far different
from what lie reports, did furnish suf.
ticient of the characteristics of that
conversation to enable him to dress il
up into a sensational article suited to
the paIates of tho readers of the Gin.
clnnatl newspaper to which he was
writing.
What my means Of information NAV
he on the the subject, am prepared to
disclose to any person who may not be
with this communication and
nay feel himself particularly az.
sreivctl.
desire to say that this communica. .
ion is made on my own indi, idual res.
possibility, aud that Tam prepared to )
'oncl' for the truth Of all herein stated
md that | assume the Consequences off, :
III dissatisfaction that may exist, which /
nay not he removed by this cou,mu. :
'ication.
Hoping that this may be satisfactory q
nd end the matter,