St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1891-10-10
QUEER DEMOCRACY.
New Delta.

There are at present corps of orator
!. tramping over the State engaged in dies
crate attempt to "saye the Democrati
party" lot of political profits-excuse us
we should have said prophets Crying il
the wilderness" for fear that that Crane
old organization will come to some harm
1t is queer crowd, and some of then
could hardly face aaeemmittee to inyesti
gate their Democracy. All of them hav,
not owed their past offices and honors tt
that organization, and one of them, at tht
last campaign and the campaign before
we refer to the campaigns of 1SS4-5 anC
1883, was most industriously engaged II
organizing the Republican party of hi.
/ district, and in one of them succeeded in
| defeating the Democratic nominee for. the
| legislature, and sending a Republican
nominee in his stead.
| This is not hearsay, but is knowledge in
the possession OF persons in the office OF
The New Delta. Another one, SO we are
| informed, has not always been true to the
party in national affairs, and it is further
claimed that letter is in existence which
| proves that he was not as solicitious for the
| success of the Democracy in the matter of
| the selection of a congressman as he is
when the Democracy has a lottery attach
ment But we consider the apostles of
this new tangled Democracy to be of
secondary Importance to the gospel which
they are preaching
The doctrine does not have about it the
right sort of ring. It sounds strange to
hear alleged Democratic speakers, at an
alleged Democratic meeting, get up and
preach, as alleged Democratic doctrine,
monopoly. To talk about Democracy and
to leave out that cardinal principle of
Democracy-equal rights to all and
special privileges to none-seems to us to
be playing Hamlet" and leaving out the
Prince of Denmark. 1t may be the fault
of our early training, but we can not re-
cOgnize as Democracy any political faith
which upholds and advocates monopoly.
The lottery "spell-binders" recognize the
the truth that there can be no Democracy
in any teaching which advocates mo-
nopoly, and they try to get out of the
dilemma by claiming that the proposed
amendment to the constitution of the
State does not contain monopoly This
is an admission that if it does, it is undem-
ocratic. Now, does it contain that feature?
Let us examine the act itself and see.
The bill gives to Morris and his six un-
known confederates the exclusive privilege
of running lotteries in this State for the
next twenty-five years. This certainly
creates monopoly, and if there is moth
ing in the act which destroys this mono
poly, then the proposition is bound to be
undemocratic. This the lotteryites can
not dispute, for this objection was made
Legislature, and to obviate it, clause was
inserted in the measure.
Now, ii this clause does not DESTROY the
monopoly is still there. We do not think
that this can be disputed. Does this clause
destroy it? Let us examine it and see If
it does it will show on its face. That there
may be no mistake about it we quote the
clause verbatim:
AAll other lotteries other than those
authorized by this article are prohibited
in this State, unless by similar amendment
to this constitution, and for not less than
81 250,O00 per annum."
This is what these alleged Democratic
speakers call destroying monopoly. The
first clause of the article which we have
quoted certainly prohibits all lotteries ex-
cept the Morris infamy. 1t is the last
clause which the lotteryites claim de-
stroys the monopoly.
The first thing which strikes one about
this clause is its brazen impudence. 1t |
actually gives to the people of Louisiana
q gracious permission to amend their own |
constitution, if they can, a right which |
they had before this clause was tackled on
to the bill The next question which is |
presented is Ndoes thisdestroy the mono
poly?" As long as Morris Gan make this I
lottery of his the only one in the State it is I
! monopoly. 1t gives him the exclusive |
light to run lotteries in this State. How |
IAN that exclusive right be taken away
rom him and others be allowed to par
icipate in it? Only by getting their bill
passed by two-thirds Of each house Of the
and voted for by majority of
he voters at the next election.
Is there man simple enough in the
State to believe that Morris would sit
quietly down and let his monopoly be de-
troyed by the adoption of any such
Do they not all know that
le would move heaven and earth to pre-
'ent its passage? And if he could control
wo-thirds of each house of the Legislature
0 pass his measure, could he not control
ust one more than one-third of one house
0 prevent the passage of rival measure?
md would he not do it? Is there man
n Louisiana with temerity enough to an
wer either one of these questions in the
legative?