The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1883-08-18
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION.

1t has been well observed that this would
be stupid old world if all the people i'll it
thought alike-if there were not at least two
sides to every question and latitude for diff
ferenceB of opinion on every conceivable
topic, proposition, circumstance or action.
this philosophical reflection by the censo-
rious criticism of our contemporary, the
Ascension Democrat, upon the editorial ar
ticle in the CHIEF Of July II under the cap
ton of "The Port Barrow Land Entry"
We endoavored in that brief article to give
succinct and unbiased statement of the
matter discussed, and have been egotistical
enough to think that we succeeded. In fact,
we have the assurance to think so yet, do
spite the contrary opinion OF our neighbor,
who attributes our statement to interested
motives and charactorizes it an ingenious
attempt to extenuate q very wicked land
grab. Another contemporary, tho Gretna
Courier, whose Observation-Disclosures will pre-
sumably not be impugned, pronounces our
views "dignilied, honest and straightfor-
ward" We are content to place these con-
tlicting judgments side by side and let tho
public choose between them.
To the sweeping assumption of our neigh
Dor that there is not a single disinterested
citizen of this parish who does not look up
on the Port Barrow entry as robbery and
denounce the methods used to accomplish
It, we are constrained to enter demurrer,
founded upon the evidence of our own
senses; and upon similar grounds do we
repcl the artful insinuation that our posi-
ton in this matter has been Influenced BY
pecuniary interest which it is claimed some
people think the editor of the CHIEF has in
the land entry.
But, after all, the only point in our
neighbours commentary which has given us
moro than passing concern, was the reitera-
ted imputation against the correctness of
tho certificate VIC signed as Clerk and Re-
corder relative to the Port Barrow titles. It
would be dislngenuous on our part to at
feet an utter contempt of the opinion of
our contemporary on this head, whatever
might be our belief as to the aniinus and
motives prompting its expression. During
our entire official career we have tried to
win the approval Of all our constituents by
proper discharge Of duty, and it would
be infinitely moro pleasant to have the ap-
plause than the criticism of the Democrats
writer; but since this privilege is denied u.s.
we may be pardoned for taking consolation
from the fallibility of our critic, and for
ndulging The hope that he will prove as
thoroughly mistaken in the present instance
as When he denounced the intorposition OF
Judge Cheevers III the recent town election
matter as an outrageous usurpation of iu-
d1clal power. The Judges understandable
and Illegal" interference in the affairs of
tho town was adjudged by the Supreme
Court legal exercise of authority in behalf
ct right guaranteed to the people by the
constitution and the laws-a right that
would be hollow mockery had the views
Of our critic prevailed. Fortunately, the
S"pltiiie oduSeS entertained different
opinion-which brings US back to the OBJ
servation with which we started out, that it
would be q hElndrum and uninterosting
world we live in if all its inhabitants were
moved by the same impulses and looked
through the same spectacles.
1t may be as well to observe. in conclu-
sion, that the foregoing remarks were pre-
pared for publication several weeks ago,
but have been crowded out by press of mat
ter which we deemed of more generalinter-
est TO our readers