The Lake Charles echo. [volume] (Lake Charles, Parish of Calcasieu, La.) 1876-1898, 1888-05-11

hAnENalbOms Dy the eAhbteEsWlGm
n View 90 Maintaining IA mis-
understood Position.
Following is the notice upon which the
correspondence Ia based
I'VE are in receipt Of Mr. d. T.. Hamiltons let
ter Of inquiry 70 Mayor Francis Of "; Louis,
with the mayors comments. Mr., Hamilton can
get this letter by calling at the Office OF j. I.
Dawes, ETC. -VindieatOr.
This considered as appearing on the re-
sponsIbillty Of the "Vindicator," and speak
Ing Of u as being IN receipt Of my "letter Of
inquiry" and accordingly addressed the fol-
lowing
'HTARKWGToN's pRAIRIE, April 2, 'ss,
EDITOR HYINDIcATOR;--Andh0 how came my letter
Of Enquiry to be placed in the hands OfJ. Z Dawes,
Liberty, Texasf Was it not referred 70 him that
Information may be correctly and satisfactorily
with the mayors comments II this i'm.
plies more than brief statement Of the situation
Ibis referring the letter Of inquiry to another
party BY whom the questions may be more satis-
taetOrily ansWered-wOuld be glad to see both
letter and comments in the 'ylndieator.'
ID, L. HAMILTON"
This communication the editor considers
TO contain questions based upon an Illogical
inference, and comments thus
I'm another column will be found a eOmmnni-
cation from MI. ID. L. HamiltO ton, In which
he prOp0unds certain questions to the 'Yindioa.
tor We do not consider tho questions pertinent
nor are they at all proper, addressed tho Editor
VindieatOT, but 10 show our fairness and liberal.
ity, we publish it, Mr., Hamilton says, And how
hands Sf II Da%ea u TbSg ~ TsTaa y ste %
Is ii the business Of the YindicatOF to keep run
Of yourletteFs, Mr.. Hamilton Perhaps the party
10 whom you wrote caa inform you Il TIE card
published by J. 7, Dawos--and for which Mr..
Dawes, not the editor Of the YindieRtOr--is re'
spOnsible, Is not satisfactory. We think Mr.,
Hamilton was little of his base when he il.
not care TO say more in noticing IT, Butin future
these personal spites and tesl0usies must seek
another channel through which 10 flow, for the
Vindicator will not allow such stuff 10 occupy its
are O company doing o legitimate business In this
section Of country, and who are libera patrons OF
this paper and pay fol, everything inserted by
them in its columns, and II parties wish tQ make
war on said company, they must pay for tlisApaee
so occupied in yentiIating thenaelyes.n
In the foregoWing 1t Is clearly seen that the
editor does not consider himself responsible
for what he informs us was published by an
other party In very pointed terms he pro-
poses TO bear of the idea that was "0H my
base, " and that was Yentilating "pePsonal
spltes and jenlousies," Feeling this 10 be
an unjust reflection, sought TO explain my
position, but to my next article the follow
ing reply was made
'The Yindicator' is in receipt of another letter
from En- ID. J., Hamilton, which he requests rs
70 publish, but AZ there is nothing whatever ~
the letter that concerns interests any one save
Mr.. Hamilton and the editor Of this paper, and Il
Is 0f but little concern to MS, we must decline to
publish 1t.
Seeing this, | requested the editor TO re-
turn the manuscript, II under no circum-
stances it would be published, at the same
time proposing 10 meet such bill as might
No n mt On
whatever was taken of my private request.
Now, has he editor HlRdicGt0') acted In
the true faith OF fair dealing editOF4 When
he rejects my communication on the ground
Of non-tnterest to the public, is bis statement
characterized with sineerity2 0fhow much
interest is his piece wherein he refers 10 the
| impertinence Of my questions, and such
personal spites and jealousies," etc How
many does this INTEREST," Inconsistency IN
the extreme to advance such plea in the
face Of such an article. Again, how much
fairness and liberality" is there In his EN-,
ployDg such personal terms without admit
ting reply OF defense AS free born Amer
lean citizens, we certainly want no such re-
stTtction of speech Insignificant as the oc-
easion is the principle stands the same. II
fairness is claimed let It be pTacticef.
Below will be found reproduction OF my
| rejected communication as nearly as could
be drawn without the original manuscript,
| WhteE, trust shows, according 70 the con
strucion Of the aforesaid notice, that II may
properly be considered as appearing on the
| responsibility of the ViRdtSdt0r. Should Il
be denied, then am willing to test views
with reference to CONSTITUTIONAL difference
according to any fair method that may be
prepared BY an opposite party.
"EDIToR vRDIcAToR;-If the card published
| BY J n. Dawes had borne the feature of having
been on his responsibility, az has now beer
stated, no address onsthe subject could, with pro
priety, have been directed TO the "Vindicat0r,'
but far from this, as ! view 1t, il occurs as a.
ordinary newspaper Botice, every noun in II being
4 spoken Of as the third peTsonI while the intro
dlctory substitute WEI certainly indicates thu
! editorial staff ii this idea is incorrect 1t mus
/ certainly be condemned according 10 rules peoJA
| lar to journalistic custom rather than scientific
usage.
mo attempt toward criticism is made. ~ b'
held IN the proper light aud treated with fairness
/ Is all that is desired.
hsueh terms AZ personal spites and iealousies'
| the "Vindicat0rp has unjnstly alleged, unlesB In
quiry and Impeachment are rendered syn0ny
NOUS. ID. H. HAAGLTos.p'
may iitl.