The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-03-29

contract, now that that journal has 50
conspicuously exposed the fact that 1t
would sacrifice the public interest In It's
greed of gain, they will endorse the ac-
ton of the Board which preferred an
other journal. The PicayAue's expos
ure OF itself In this matter Is revolving;
we almost blush for 1t ourselves. Is 1t
bankrupt that, in It's agony over the
loss of what, to daily metropolitan
newspaper. is an Insignificant item, 10
contract for thirty or thirty-two thou
sand dollars worth of printing! it wildly
attempts to destroy the Administration
and the Legislature?
We do not pretend to say that these
nor what considerations Influenced
the choice Of the Board. We simply
give these as our reasons and the rea-
sons of the people for thinking that the
Board ought not to have given State
contract to the Ptcayune. Another and
very important reason why that Jour-
nal ought not to have aspired to this
contract Ia that it's proprietorship is In
litigation. No one knows to whom the
Picayune belongs. A suitis now pend
ing against the present possessers, and
the general opinion is that the present
possessors are fraudulent possessors.
To whom the Picavune belongs is
o question impossible to answer.
Mr.. Howard, we believe, claims 1t. and
@ number of other gentlemen claim 1t.
In the course OF the litigation, or at the
end Of It, the concern may be sold at
public auction, and who will buy 1t
Democrats, Conservatives, or Republi'
cans? Ex-Gov. Warmoth, or Mr.. Her
wig, or Mr.. Packard, or any other man
ambitious OF running newspaper, may
purchase it In the next six or eight
months. Would 1t have been safe,
polite or just on the part Of the Print
ing Board to give the public printing to
such an institution? We think not.
That the last election was won by the
united Democrats and Conservatives. as
the Ptcay,tse says, we cordially concede.
But it is O notorious ~ It that several
years of the Picayu,re's existence were
spent In the effort to prevent that com
bination and to organize third party.
The victory could not have been won
had not the Democrats and Conserva-
tives united as one man. That union
the DEMOCRAT contended and fought for
from the first day Of its existence until
1t was contaminated by the nominations
at Baton Rouge. That union, the
course and teachings OF the Ptcdyune In
advocating q third party were calcutta
ted to defeat. Because the DEMOCRAT
served the State in aiding to consum-
mate this union is the reason the peo-
pie endorse the action OF the Board ;
and consistency to its own present ut
terances-that this union won the fight
should prompt the Ptcaynne itself to
concede that the DEMOCRAT ought to
have the contract.
What the Picayune says about the cir
culation of the DEMOCRAT and the
necessity of the printing to its
existence is unworthy Of discussion.
1t talks of what 1t knows nothing.
Every slang-whanging scribbler on the
press who loses his temper and is
afflicted with scarcity Of brains,
charges his contemporaries with q lack
Of circulation and o want Of business.
We feel Inundated In being at time
like this dragged into such q contro-
versy. We have not sought 1t, but
neither shall we decline it, and we close
these observations with the remark
|that, distasteful as it is to US, We are
prepared, now that 1t has been forced
upon US, to continue the discussion, IL
1t pleases the Ptcag1ne to make fur
ther exposure OF itself. We hope, how
ever, 1t will calm It's ruffled temper and
leave US to devote our attention and
space to subjects OF more interest and
Importance to the State.