The Opelousas courier., 1882-01-28
senator Fontenot's Letter.

We publish in to-day's COURIER a
lengthy letter from Senator Fontenot,
in reference to the recent Senate reor-
ganizatiou. Our friend starts out with
the statement that we have made ''di-
rect charge" of injustice and unfairness
against nineteen Democratic senator's.
Here he is in error; for, on the contra
ry, we were careful to state that the in
justice and unfairness were seeming.
With the lights before us then, it did
so appear to us; and with the addi-
tional light thrown upon the subject by
our friends letter, we cannot say that
our opinion is materially changed.
1t is understood land generally ad-
mitted, we believe,) that number of
Senator Robertson's friends were absent
in the country when the caucus was de-
termined upon. Was it just or fair,
under such circumstances, to hold that
caucus IL hours, or even "a hours, after
notice was served upon Senator Rob
ertson no matter whether any rules
existed on the subject or not Nay,
was it just or fair to hold that cancus,
or to determine that question, until SEN
ator Robertson had been given ample
time to recall his absent friends
Again, it seems to eur untutored
mind, that it was not.
But Senator Fontenot asks of what
force is this objection, I" since there
were ia attendance at the caucus, nine
teen senators, who constituted, not only
majority of the Democratic senators,
but an actual majority of the Senate it.
self" We do not care to follow mp our
friend further than necessary to demon
strate that our article of the l4th is not
90 erroneous as he deems it; nor do we
care to discuss here the constitutional
aspect of this question but we may
say that we can readily suppose a case
where this objection would have tre-
mendous force, Notwithstanding the ex'
istence of the circumstances and condi'
tions described. Suppose, for instance
of the 10 present, only 10, IL, or IL ia
vored reorganization, and one, two
three OF more of Senator Robertson's
friends were absent; is it not clear tina
this minority could bind the majority
present and absent, to do thing, IL
open Senate, to which they would neve
4 have consented. had they been allowe'
an opportunity to attend the caucus
Respecting the reason-the motive
given for the change, we must be ex
cused if we frankly state we share th
r surprise expressed by Senators Nut
and Cunningham We thought Sena
tor Robertson's attitude towards tn
Lottery was well kneWn long ago.
we are not very much mistaken. it wa
we'll kHown-in St. Landry, at least
as far back as prior to the election
delegates to the Constitutional Conver
. ton. We are inclined to think that
was we'll known among Senators Whe
he was elected President pro tenn. OF til
Senate in 1880. We therefore cannt
, clearly see why gentlemen who vote
for him then should vote against hi
now, simply because Senator Lucas TO
malIy announced to the caucus whi
Q every senator in it was presumed
f know already.
Q We submit that the time to rebut
b these grave charges if regarded
L such by his constituency and by Il
Senate, was in the campaign of ls7
9 and in the Senate organization in loo
d To conclude. Our friend seems
: think that s. the character and standir
! of these senators should exempt the
from our criticism. We dissent Q
tirely from that proposition. Their q
. tion seemed to us to be unfair and U
! Just, and we said that it so seemed v
claim the right of eriticising the actl'
of our public servants whenever '
!. may see fit, no matter what positl'
{ they may occupy, or what may be ths
!, character or standing. Were We to
:. linauish this right, our friend Font
NOT, himself, might be among the fii
! 10 ask us to reassume tho exercise
our prerogative.
ar