Homer guardian. (Homer, La.) 1888-1890, 1888-10-26
Inconsistency of Editor Pearce.

and freely ON the actions OF the
Monroe convention in nomina.
ting c. j. Boatncr to represent
TINS District in Congress.
We can see no reason nor con.
ceive any excuse for his intemper-
ate philippics against Capt. Boat
ner, unless it is the object of the
hitherto Simon pure Democrat to
lead q bolt in the 5th District.
indeed his writings strongly in
dictate that it Is doubtful whether
he will support the nominee or.
not.
His ostensible grounds Of Oh
lection are that Boatner has lost
his domicile in this District, and
that he was nominated by the
Ouachita Ring; but We think his
objections and criticisms cmanate
mainly from the fact that his ia
vorite was defeated. If we are
not mistaken as to the facts, there
was no man IN this District who
for eight years sung the praise of
j. Floyd King louder for congress,
while he was a citizen Of Mississ-
ippl, than Brother Pearcc. Then
if King could represent us while
resident of Mississippi, pray why
cannot Boatner represent us, al
though his domicile be in an ad.
joining District, especially since
the law does not require him tore
side in his District?
The old chestnut "That it
makes q great deal Of difference As
to whose OK is gored," Is applica-
bic in this case to friend Pcarce.
Again, as to Boatner being .
candidate of the Ouachita Ring:
Every citizen Of Louisiana who 10
posted in regard to the politics OF
the 5th District knows full we'll
that il a man was ever nominated
through the influence of a Ring,
it was Newton two years ago, and
by this same Ring which Pearce
now claims defeated him this time.
1t is 3 significant fact that the
Ring was for Newton before, that
it Was for him this time, and only
went to Boatner, without his
knowledge and consent, when there
was no longer any chance for New.
ton. Then it was New toms
friends who nominated Boatner.
In supporting Mr.. Newton, accord
ing to friend Pearcc's theory, he
supported a Ring candidate; in
supporting ]. Floyd King he sup.
ported a candidate that not only
lived out ofthe District, but one
who lired out Of the State. Then
why all these lamentations over
the nomination of Boatner, broth
or Pearce? We fail to see your
consistency.
Now then, we too, supported
Newton in this last campaign, and
believe he should have been nomi-
mated; but after the convention
saw he had no chance they did
wise in nominating Boatner. We
do not belong to any Ring, nor do
we favor the policy sometimes
adopted by them, but we will not
fall out with, and refuse to sup
port good man because he has
been nominated by a Ring.
From reading the Cahgraph we
have been led to believe that it |
was in favor of a tariff for revenue
only, and opposed to a protective
tariff, also the Blair Bill, yet it ap-
plauded Mr.. Halstead in voting
Tor 8 man whose views are diamet- |
rically opposed to the views of a
majority of the people Of this Dis
trlct who favor radical reduction |
Of the tariff. The main issue now |
between the two parties is the tar.
if; a great principle is involved in |
this campaign, and Claiborne par
ish, if not majority Of the par.
ishes in this District, would pre-.
fer q man with sound views on |
these great questions, even though |
ne Is q citizen of another District. |
to one who lived in it and favored |
q protective tariff. We lbeleyel
Mr.. Boatner's views on the tariff |
question are thoroughly in accord
with the tariff reformers of this
District.