The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1876-10-28
Democratic Slander Demolished.

Democratic Slander Demolished,
Our Gallant Standard Bearer Vindicatei
his Character.
The following plain and manly let
ter from Hon. S. B. Packard, Repub,
lican candidate for Governor, explains
itself:
New ORLEANS, October II, 1876.
To the Editor of the New Orleans Democrat
During my recent absence from the
city, several distinct charges against
me have appeared in your columns
charges false, libelons and slanderous
in all respects. AS s0ou as they came
to my knowledge / addressed you
from Alexandria, under date of Oc-
tober'12, respectful communication,
denying that there was any truth in
the statements, and demanding either
proofs or IL retraction. Of this com
munication you hsHe taken, in viola
ton of the commoffest laws of cOur-
tesy, no editorial notice whatever.
In your issue of Sunday last you
/ again I0ptdU ttC StlIEtC
statements with two affidayits, and |
am astonished that these documents
did not indicate 10 you alike the ut
ter untrnth of your charges, and that
in their publication You were exceed
ing the limit of the most liberal license
in the defamation of a political ad-
! versarA.
One Carroll Temps is published in
your article of Sunday as having
sworn that he made ii claim for bounty
through me, that he gave me his dis
charge papers, came frequently to my
office, corner of st. Charles and Mel
| pomene streets, and asked me for SAID
papers, that he was driven off, and
that I made the guard point his gun
at him. Each of these particular
charges is false. never received his
claim, never had his discharge, nor
had an office at the locality men
toned. never drove him off, and never
even knew of the pretended affiant.
The simplest form of elementary
reasoning should have satisfied YOU
that men in the pursuit of the business
of collecting claims do not have guards
armed with mnskets or guns on duty
OH their premises any more than do
merchants, lawyers or editors. This
fact might, had Aou been less blinded
by partisanship, have satisfied you of
the general character of the falSehood.
The certificate published by YOU of
H0smer & CO., claim agents ut Wash
iF,Tr iEst1f
his claim to General {. Hamlin, aud
i'll any business of claims with which
that gentleman was identified, / never
had any interest whatsoever. directly
or Indirectly. The remaining atfif;l-
Wit is of one George Washington. who
AYERS himself to have been IL sergeant
in Company 3, Seventy eighth Resi
ment United States Culored Infantry.
| never received discharge paper
from any George Washington of said
regiment. In connection with the doe
nment, you publish an Endorsement
or certificate of E. B. French, Auditor,
United States Treasury, to the effect
that the claim of Washington was set
tied August 30, 1868, by certificate,
for 1921 20, and say, .editorially, that
sit is therefore. very clear that after
obtaining George Washington's pa
perS Mr.. Packard collected his claim
of 1921 90 against the government.
and now holds the money in his poek-
et." While it does not appear from
the Auditors certificate that the claim
was ever in my hands, l will assume
that George Washington of some
other regiment lodged his claim with
me.
1t is to me incompreheusible that
an editor should have permitted such
a defamatory article to appear in "a
public journal when reasonable falnil-
iarity with the published statutes of
the United States would have demou-
strated the absolute falsehood of any
charge of embezzlement. You should
have known that the charge that had
collected of the United States the
bounty money or back pay of any coli
ored man who had served in the army
of the United State was false, and that
it is impossible tor any claim agent to
collect aud keep money due from the
ChAbSu CbhACS ~ StuI CuloACu SOIulcI.
The act of Congress approved March
20, 1867, Fifteenth Statutes at Large,
page 26, required all such claims to be
paid by the disbursing officer Of the
treasury to the Commissioner of the
Bureau, and by the officers
of that bureau paid direct to the per-
son to whom it was due. You should
have known that it was impossible for
me to have obtained the money of any
colored claimant of back pay and |
bounty, because the disbprsiig of
ficers of the treasury were prohibited
from paying the money to any but the
actual claimant himself
Ii the editor of the Democrat had
know, as every editor should know,
the statutes of his country, the SLAM
der, it is in charity to be hoped, would
never have been published.
In relation to the Feibleman case |