The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-25
MR.. OLINTON'S GARD.

editor OF THIS paper I'D q personal reSpon'
sbility for the editorial article which APP
peared In the DEMOCRAT Of Friday morning,
or forever held his peace. But Mr.. Clinton
has thought differently and published q card
In reply to an article to which no newspaper
reply was expected or should have been made
Perhaps we should not condescend to continue
controversy with a man who feels that he
can meet such an article as that of
the DEMOCRAT of Friday by card. But
the Issue between the proprietors OF the
| Times and the DEMOCRAT has passed beyond
the limits Of personal issue, and. since the
Times has chosen to make itself the organ OF
the rings which are seeking to asperse the
character of the DEMOCRAT. and at the same
time declines to accept any personal respon-
sibilty for It's insidlous, defamatory and
insulting articles, we feel that, in justice to
ourselves. we must expose the character Of
the man who owns and controls that journal.
The card OF Mr.. Clinton, printed in the
Taees Of yesterday morning, Identifies him
as the owner, manager and editor OF that
paper. This IL an important point to be
established. The Times, which has been
vigilant and INSCRIPTIONS in its efforts to
disseminate and bolster up the charges of
| fraud against the State Printer, Ia now proved
beyond question to be owned, managed and
edited by Mr.. Charles Clinton. Kellogg's ex-
Auditor, who while holding his Office by
usurpation, denounced the white people OF
Louisiana as white rebel skunks.' This
fact established by Mr.. Cintons own ad-
mission, we propose briefly to review his
remarkable card. With absolute truth. Mr..
Clinton attributes the articles In the
DEMOCRAT, denouncing him to the editor of
this paper; and his acquaintanoes who have
assured him that the editor of the DEM
oCRAT would not knowingly make untruth-
| full or unjust charges against him repre-
scented the editor of the DEMOCRAT correctly.
We regret to say, however, that no acqueint-
ance OF ours informs us, and no evidence
within our reach convinces us. that Mr.. Gin
ton would not willingly aid in defaming the
character Of the proprietors OF the DEMOCRAT
by the most vile and cowardly PUBLICATIONS
and Misrepresentation.
| Mr.. Clinton, the proprietor and editor OF
the Times. declares that he Is not q thief, that
he never robbed the Charity Hospital Of six
thousand dollars or Of six dollars. or Of any
other number OF dollars. More extraordinary
such charge having been made against him
save by hearsay, while for his good character
he refers usto number Of prominent bank
ers and merchants Of this city.
| AS a charitable and humane man we wish
| that Mr.. Clinton had not written his card.
Though as an act Of justice we print it In an
other columnl He il the editor and owner Of
great conservative paper and q member of
the Young Mems Christian Association, 1--WE
believe that at one time he was president of
that most estimable organization In our city,
| and yet he has written himself down In his
| card as an idiot or q falsifi n. We believe that
no man Ia Louisiana will say that Mr.. Clinton
! Is an idiot. But II he is not an idiot he Is q
falsifler.
He says that he never heard that a charge
OF svindlng the hospital fund had been made
against him, except by hearsay. In another
column we reproduce for the third time a re-
port of legislative committee Of 1876 signed
by every member of the committee. including
two Republicans, in which Mr.. Clinton Is
directly charged with having been party to
disreputable transaction, In which the
Charity Hospital fund was robbed OF $6500
| No more shameful TRANSACTION has been ex-
| posed In the history Of the Radical regime In
this State. The report was printed In nearly
every paper In Louisiana The indignation
of the people, from the Arkansas line to the
Gulf was aroused. Mr.. Clinton was the prin-
| cipal accused; he was In the State at the
| time; he was a leading Radical, and
| the charge against him was that, as high
| State official, he had In the most Infamous and
disgraceful manner robbed sacred fund.
And now Mr.. Charles Clinton, the owner and
editor OF the leading conservative journal In
New Orleans, with the largest circulation In the
Southwest and a shining light In the Young
| Mems Christian Association, boldly, badly
and brazenly asserts In a card that he never
| heard of this charge against himself until
our article of Friday. Oh, shame, where is
thy blush!
And now, as to the personal reference Of
Mr.. Clinton to the editor Of the DEMOCRAT,
we have this to say; that the editor OF the
DEMOCRAT writes upon his own re-
sponsibility, and scorns the insinuation OF
Mr.. Clinton that he has been misinformed.
He has written upon the authority
of the legislative report reprinted in another
column, and when Mr.. Clinton steps to the
front, valves any prescription that may
shield him from prosecution for crime, and
desires a new legislative investigation, or,
| If it be possible, a criminal prosecution In the
courts, as the State Printer has done, our
sense Of honor is guarantee that until the
result Is made public we will not assail him
again.
In conclusion, we wish it to be distinctly
understood that the proprietors of the DEMO
Graf stand together. Ii the State Printer,
Mr.. G. w. Dupre, has robbed the State,
and is criminal, SO is the editor OF the
DEMOCRAT a rascal. The accounts of the
DEMOCRAT against the State were sworn to by
Mr. Dupre, because the business department
of the paper was under his management But
the editor and other proprietors were parties
to the transactions, and II the State Printer
| is swindler so are all of us. An attack made
upon Mr.. Dupre Is also an attack upon the
| editor of the DEMOCRAT and his associates,