St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1884-02-02
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
AND THE LOTTERY AD-
REFRESHMENTS.

The Lake Charles Commercial in an
article headed "'Fair Play recently dis
cussed the question of publishing the
constitutional amendments. The law
required them to be published in one
paper in each country parish where a
paper exists. The State administration
has given the publication of these
amendments to papers that supported
the administration in the recent cam
paign, except in parishes where there
was no such paper. This seems to us to
be perfectly natural. In Calcasieu the
Echo supported the administration, and
it was selected to publish the amend
ments. The Commercial did not sup
port the administration, but it claims to
have slung no mud at it, and it COM
plains because the publication OF the
proposed amendments was not let out
to the lowest bidder that it might have
a chance to get them and that the State
might have the work done for the
lowest possible price. The publication
of these amendments is not in the class
of regular advertisements, but is excep-
tional and the law requiring them to
be published, did not require them to
be let out to the lowest bidders. The
Commermial might have said that in
parishes where the Democratic MAORI
ty was against the administration, an
anti-anministration paper should have
had the publication OF the amendments;
this would have given them to the
Commercial in Calcasieu, to the Town
Talk in Rapides and to this paper in St.
Landry. But there are parishes where
the Democratic majority was in favor of
the administration and the only paper
in them was against it; SO the rule
would not work, and it is natural and
not wrong that the advertisement
should be given to administration pa
pers. The law requires it to be given to
only one paper in each country parish.
There were two administration papers
in this parish, and the law. was COM
piled with but in neighboring parish
that was against the administration,
where there were two papers for it and
one against it, the publication of the
amendments was given or
published in both administration papers, |
and of course the law was violated to
favor an administration paper. In this
neighboring parish, both the admins
tration papers have the lottery adver-
tisement also, and the anti-administra-
tion paper has it not. In this parish all
three papers had the lottery advertise
menr until recently it still stands in
the columns of the two papers that sup
ported the administration, but this pa
per opposed the administration and the
lottery advertisement was stopped. We
10 not say and do not believe that the |
State administration controls the lot |
terry advertisement. We feel certain
that it was Withdrawn from this paper
through the kind attentions of the same
friend who obtained it for us and he
was the most Jealous administration
politician in the parish during the re-
tent campaign. We expected to lose
he lottery advertisement; we felt sure
we could not oppose the administration
md keep it. But we had to serve the
people, or those opposed to them, and
We chose the former. It may be merely
coincidence, the way the lottery adj
and constitutional amend
nent advertisement run together, but
t is very singular one.