The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1886-07-17
THE COURT HOUSE QUESTION.


For several years the subject of remov-
ing the court house from Colfax has
exercised the minds of some of our hill
friends, and at last the matter is to be
submitted to vote of the people. There
is no good reason to be advanced why the
removal should be made, but on the con-
trary many substantial considerations
why it is best for If to remain where it is
at present located. We shall not at this
time try to add to the arguments that
have heretofore been advanced in support
of our position, but will devote this article
to the refutation of few ideas advanced
in this issue of the CHRONICLE in two
contributions respectively from Messrs.
Andrew Thorpe and r. s. Cameron.
The first named party rushes into print
with the declaration that Mr.. Collins, the
careful and investigating police juror
from ward five, in laying before the peo-
pie statistics and statements bearing ON
the case, has resorted to "bugbear" to
unduly influence public opinion. We
shall see by investigation that the gen.
tleman himself is the "bugbear" man, in
that he has jumped to rash couel'eioR
and made unworthy insinuations, while
his figures lack the quality of being
correct and convincing, as are those
furnished by Mr.. Collinss>. AS q lawyer
Mr.. Thorpe can be expected to make
some sort of an argument ON the wrong
side of almost any question, but in the
present instance he seems to haye for
gotten his cunning and run short OF logic.
No one believes for a moment that our
police jury are set of knaves who would
connive at scheme to mulct the parish
into paying the scrip of the past fifteen
years, nor has any such thing been thought
of by any one except the gentleman him.
self. All that is proposed is exactly what
he says: witnesses can be paid ROM
THIS DATE reasonable compensation for
attendance, and mileage" There is to
be no attempt to deplete the treasury, but
demand that the parish shall pay an
honest Indebtedness before squandering
her revenues in useless expenditures.
In his statement of the condition of
the finances of the parish Mr.. Thorpe is
totally at sea. The assessment of the
parish for 1885 was S642, 459, and for 1886
it is S642,347, a decrease of SIP. In
other words the parish will receive one
dollar and twelve cents less revenue this
year than it received last year. This fact
can be verified by referring to the state
ment of the parish treasurer in another
place. The gentleman is boss hand to
ask conundrums, his article fairly bristling
with interrogation points, and we will
follow suit by asking him one If S6400
barely paid the current expenses of 1885
with the small surplus of 1886, when not
dollar was paid out for bridges, how
much of the revenues OF SO and other
years will remain as long as any portion
of the money is expended ON bridges?
The center of population, litigation and
taxation argument is clumsily evaded by
proposing to gamble OFF the one right,
supposing preposterous case to meet
state Of facts that have existed for fifteen
years and still continue to give the second
right, and begging the question altogether
in the third instance by claiming that it
is case of wealthy minority opposed
to a poor "piney woods" majority, in
which the poor man has not fair show.
This is all the veriest twaddle, and no
one knows it better than Mr. Thorpe. An
election is to be ordered, and the matter
will be fairly tested at the polls. If a
majority favor the removal it will be
made, and we shall quietly accept the
result; but in the meantime we shall use
our best efforts to keep majority OF the
voters ON our side, nor will we rest quiet
and allow the friends who think as we do
have their motives and actions aspersed
and misrepresented. The field is open
and fair discussion welcome.
Mr. Cameron advances the queer idea
that because four or five lawless men once
made an ugly demonstration in our court
room in behalf of murderer that the
court house should be removed from
Colfax. The parties referred to as enter
ing the court house we learn by inquiry
are said to have been L. McNeely, ID.
A. Smith, L. NJ Wells, Henry Grant and
Lindsey Brown, brother to the prisoner.
The thee last named were and are still
residents OF other parishes. The first
named is said 10 be the one that sat IN
Browns lap. He is now absent from
town, and we are unable to give his
version of the affair, but Mr.. Smith says
+l,a% 81 Cor &c no 10 concerned the state