The Lake Charles echo. [volume] (Lake Charles, Parish of Calcasieu, La.) 1876-1898, 1884-02-02
Fair RDlny aRGI PaBIic Patron
RRe


the 18th ult.,) now depreeates an
further controversy in the folIowin,
language:
While entering our formal protes
against any further controversy abon
so small a matter, injustice to our es
teemed friend of the Echo, we fee
bound to answer his question. 0u
friend asks u.s.:
''If the administration, or rathel
the Secretary of State, had rendered
you the publication of those docu
ments 1.-THE proposed constitutions
amendments), unsolicited by You
would you have rejected them on the
ground that they might be considered
reward pap or party patronage"
Ans -" Unquestionably, we would
not have refused to publish them"
AS to this-enough said. But he
claims that "this is not exactly the
point raised" in his article, "Fair
Play" but that he aimed his stric-
lures or grievances at the 'Gaimus'
of the administration, in that it paid
''no regard - = to economy or
any thought to the more extensive cir
culatiOn of the papers selected-aiso,
that public interest had nothing to do
with the matter" All of which we beg
leave to take issue with our seemingly
well informed friend, and say that the
evidence is overwhelmingly against
him in this. If, with candor and a
due regard to justice, be will 60 over
the numerous newspapers in the State,
which have been employed to publish
the amendments, he must admit that
they represent circulation, at least,
equal to three-fiftbs of the people Of
the State. This much, as to the re-
gard for the public interest; and as to
the matter Of economy he will see that
neither the Secretary NOR Governor
have any discretion in the matter; the
Law orders peremptorily the publica-
lions to be made for ninety days in
one newspaper, in every parish, within
the State, and only SO much has been
done. So much for economy.
AS to the staunchnsas of those Dem
oeratic papers that antagoniEed the ad-
ministratiOn previous to nomination,
We deem it a mere matter of opinion,
which we grant may be enjoyed to its
fullest extent by Our contemporary,
with no desire to initiate against his
right on our part as to him, and we
hope, and have reason to believe, he
will be as equally liberal in granting
US the same privilege Of enjoying our
opinions as himself in the premises.
As to his taking it ''for granted
THAI the proposed amendments"
are not published by us "gratuit-
ousiy,' we respectfully state that, we
do expect to be remuDerated for the
work.
In his reference to the OpelousaS
Courier's remark, viz: THE anti-ad-
niDistration papers should have been
favored with this extraordinary priv
Ilege to the exclusion of the friends of
the administration" he enters up
with the following; but
we do presume to say that the present
X should treat all
Democrats alike, x and should not
SOW the seeds of disruption in the
party by patronizing a faction Of the
Democratic press" Now, in answer
10 this, We are constrained TO say,
without any desire or Intention TO
cast any reflection upon our level
headed contemporary, that we know
of no disruption in the Democratic
party, and would be sorely disap-
pointed TO find that any existed; and
We are overlooking with curiosity to
have. the existing rings and rivals and
antagonistic factions" which he says
exists, pointed out to us, that he has
discovered in the ranks of the Demo
cratic party.
We are inclined to the opinion,
whether well founded or not, it does
not matter, that the enemies of the
Democratic party in this State would
be pleased to see the old party dis
aggregated; and if we mistake not,
they are exerting themselves to effect
q dissolution of the party by undue
fanlt-fndiDg with Its leaders, and en-
eouraging dissatisfaction by charging
its leaders with invidious distinctions
in the party and the existence of rings
and rivals and antagonistic factions
in the party. But, if our friend is
the PpEe and patriotic exponent of
Democracy, we believe him to be, we
hope he will not be infueBced by any
sueh sinister charges and allegations,
because, as he says, this printing bust
ness is 'ttoo small a NATTER and as
q distinguished contemporary says ::
There is no necessity here for the
attamDt IN ride,t two loPsas tEauarnny