St. Landry democrat., 1882-02-04
THE ST. LANDRY DEMOCRAT
Senator FOntenOt Again.

Saturdays Courier:
Editors of the Courier:
My purpose in addressing to you, my
letter on the subject Of the organization
of the Senate, was to set before my
facts, not to excite discussion.
Some Of your editorial remarks how.
ever, require from me, an additional
comment, in the interest of truth.
You charged in your first editorial,
that it seemed to you, Senator Robert
son had been treated unjustly and UNI
fairly, and in reply to my letter, you
say that your opinion is not materially
changed. Indeed, your last editorial
is a more emphatic and deliberate az
raignment of myself, and my brother
senators who acted with me, than your
first.
You say, "Itis understood (and
generally admitted, we believe,) that a
number of senator Robertson's friends
were absent in the country, when the
caucus was determined upon"
This is very vague statement, upon
which to base so serious a charge. BY
arhom was it understood and admitted 7
it is unworthy of consideration. it how
ever, YOU got your information from
some authentic personal source, should
be obliged to you, to procure from that
same source, and publish in your jour-
nal, the names Of senator RObertsOn's
democratic friends, who at that juno
ture, were in the country. Unless you
name them, I shall hold your statement
to be unfounded in fact.
You say again. Suppose, for in
stance Of the 10 present, only 10, II, or
- favored reorganization, and one,
two, three or more OF senator Robert
sons friends were absent; is it not
clear, that this minority could bind the
majority, present and absent, to do a
thing, in open Senate, to which they
would never have consented, had they
the caucus z"
A conclusive answer to your question,
lies in the fact, that there are 80 demo-
cratic members of the Senate; that
these constituted the full democratic
caucus, and that eighteen of these,
tmore than a Majority had signed q
pledge to reorganize the Senate. 1t
was therefore, beyond the power OF the
remaining democratic Senators, had
every one been q personal follower of
senator Robertson, and not one absent
in the country, with any kind of pre-
vious notice whatever, to have defeated
the action in caucus, as determined
upon, by the 1S signers of the call.
The 10 senators who composed the
session of the caucus that determined
to reorganize the Senate, were the
same that formed quorum OF the
Senate, when it re-assembled, all other
senators having absented themselves.
Again you say, you thought senator
II 40 rIu tho MI ny1,
was we'll known long ago, in st. Landry,
at least prior to the time he was elected
President pro tenn. of the Senate in 1880,
and that you cannot therefore clearly
see, why gentlemen who voted for him
then, should vote against him now"
If, Messrs. Editors, | had time, and
your space allowed, | could select from
the editorial matter Of your paper, of
date not very remote, .most eloquent
and Just denunciations of the Louisna
Lottery Company; sentiments which
did you honor, and gratifed your
friends. But, my purpose is not to ar.
raign your consistency, it is to keep
anyse!f right in the estimation of my
NV attitude towards the Lottery
Company is well known to my consti-
tuents, and to members OF the State
Senate. Ny course towards it, has
been one of incorporating oppOsi-
ton, and will continue to be so, as long
as / hold public position. did not
Senator Robertson, when elected Presi-
dent pro tenn. of the Senate, I was en-
or approving his relations to
the Lottery Company, which you say,
for a long period past, have been of
public notOriety.
At the time senator Robertson was
elected President pro tenn. there was no
agitation of the Lottery question, and
my objections to him on that score, |
was willing to put by, in order to secure
for my district, so important and inffu-
entail position, as that of presiding
officer of the Senate.
A majority of the Senate, was OPP
posed to the Lottery Company, and
could protect itself against its presid-
ing officer, by reorganization at any
time as was actually done, when sena-
tor Robertson gave them occasion to do
30.
wish finally to say, that the caucus
did not do 80, because Of the discovery
of senator Robertson's relations to the !
Lottery Company; nor do | doubt your |
in saying, that they were |
we'll known. The remark Of senator
as reported to the caucus,
was considered disrespectful to both the
Senate and the House, though it was
upon the Senate, more espe-
,ially to notice it, as he was member
If that body. 1t would in any case, be
IN ofiense to the dignity of the Legis-
AZURE, and a trespass upon its prerOga-
ives, were the Governor of the State
20 declare in advance, that should the
legislature pass an act OF a given
he would compel them to
bass it again, over his veto.
Such declarations, coming from one
whom accident might make the Chief
Executive Of the State, are if possible,