The Opelousas courier., 1884-04-05
OPELousAs. March 27. 1884

OPEL0USAS, March ", 1884.
EDIT0R DEMOCRAT
The enclosed card was sent to fhc CoURHBR
with polite request to publish. There was an
apparent disinclination ON the part of the
Editor applied to to do so. Yeu will please do
me the favor to insert it in year columns.
Yours very truly. tf
THos. III. LEWIS. zs
0PELoUsAs, March 25, 1884. u
MEssRs. EpIToRs
extract from your editorial summary of
court events in your last week S issue the fol
lowing: @M9-s
.As it is, the eommnnity has cause fur cor.
agratulati0n Tor the able manner IN which
sssaid term of court was condacEed by Dist
Attorney Perfedin, and We congratulate
that officer the fact that he convicted in
steresy instance. there being no acquitsai to
ssrecord.
There was one mistrial and in this case
sstlle District Attorney did not participate,
.sto.wit The case of Blanchard for man
slaughter, in which III III. Lewis. Esq, pro-
| secuted as special counsel-the accused
abeing represented by c. w. DuRey, ESQ.
Yeu do not attend the sessions of cur
court, and Of course, get your information
fren, somebody that does. If that somebody
had given YOU all the facts connected with
the Blanchard trial, you would have seen in
them no occasion for the mention of my
name in unfavorable contrast with that OF
Il.
myself to state them.
| The bill fer manslaughter against Blan
ciard was filed on September 9th, 1858, and
ever since that time his scounsel, Mr.. DuRoy,
contrary 10 the usual practice in such cases,
has been pressing for q trial. So confident
was he of an acquittaI, that he had the wit
nesses placed under recognizance bonds, and
at the opening of the present term, applied
for and obtained attachments against NUM-
Der of witnesses, so as to insure trial when
the case should be reached. Mr. Perrodin
had the same opinion ofsshs issue of the case.
fer he told me after the trial, he had thought
there would be an acquittal Under these
circumstances, and considering that tho jury
stood six for acquittai aud six for convic-
tlon, it is to be presumed the interests OF the
State suffered ne detrinlent in my hands.
can have no objection TO the hatter1ng
comments you besfow upon these gentle
men, but decidedly object TO it being done
at lly expense through yeur editorial col
umns. Whatever share of professional eepu,
tati0n have acquired is my property, and
i public Journal has no right to reflect upon
it. either BY direct criticism or BY partial
statement of facts, until some good cause be
$50, Respectfully,
THos Fl. LEWIS.
The above appeared in the ST. Lam.
dry Democrat of the 18th ult. Mr..
/ Lewis knows the full meaning and inn
port of his words, and he must be
aware that pernsal of his note to the
Democrat leaves In the mind of the
reader tile impression that we had de-
elined to allow him the Hse ofoour col
| unns in order to make his expIana-
fion-ifl other words, that we had de-
Enied him a hearing and had refused to
give him fair play. That impression is
an incorrect and false one. Mr.. w. s.
Frazee brought as the letter quoted
above, requesting it's insertion in the
COURIER. After reading it, we I'M
| Termed Mr.. Frazee that we would in
sert the letter just as it was, II Mr..
| Lewis insisted upon il, but suggested
that the concluding paragraph be
omitted. as ne would otherwise feel
compelled to reply to it, and thus per-
haps involve the writer iIl q contrOyer-
sy which We did not think he yearned
/ after. We also informed the inessen-
ger that il the obnoxiens paragraph
/ was eliminated, we would not notice
/ the communication otherwise than to
state that no reflection upon Mr.. Lewis
4 vas intended. The last statement we
made to tho messenger, however, in re-
ply to Il direct question from him, was
that We would insert the letter Just az
/ Il pas, if desired. So much for the
Ess apparent tlisinclinatien mot teal
I low FAIR play, butte engage in a dis
agreeable controversy. An hour or sc
afterwards, happening to see Mr.. Fra
zee. we Inquired what Mr.. Lewis pro-
posed 10 do. He answered that hs
atIlonght he would publisilit il, Or words
fto that effect, leaving tbs under the i'm
1 pressiorl that the letter would be sem
Efo us for publication, We heard NJ
more of the matter until the letter
with it's accompanying note, appeared
i III the Democrat.
As regards The circumstances attend
! ing the triaI III question, Mr.. Lewis
version may be perfectly correct-ws
1 have not thought it necessary to pul
ourselves to the trouble of inquiring
q llinasnuch as, in our opinion, its cor
RICHNESS or incoTrectnees does not affec1
] the matter at Issue. The fact renaini
fiat MI. perrodin convicted In eyers
i instance. and that the only crinlina
i case which did net result in convic
Il ton was the Que III which Mr.. Levi
prosecuted. That statement was mad'
i by us. as above quoted, ii no offensive
4 manner, and with no Intention to reflec
4 lsupen 81 detract from Mr.. Lewis rathe
iealousIy guarded professional Tepu
4 tation; and NE submit that our Ian
guage was not so susee ptable Of such
q construction as that of his note is o
& z,s;., q ,rsatrsses7 AZ HauYantiv false IN