The Opelousas courier., 1891-02-28

toward that concern. As to the attitude
of the Courier towards the lottery, we
have only to say that when the question
of reyoking its charter in 1859 was
being discussed, we favored the move
ment; but since that corporation be-
came imbedded in the constitution of
1879, recognizing the futility of any eff
forts to dislodge it until the expiration
of its charter, we have regarded the
I" opposing and denouncingn of it as
mere demagogism, and have taken no
part therein. Having settled this point,
to finally dispose of No. 2, we may be
permitted to add that between $4,000
per annum which the State received in
1889, and one million and a quarter
which it will receive in 1895, there is
sliqht difference which mag account for
the difference of the views of some peo-
pie on the expediency of having lot
terry in 1889 and in 1895.
5. The only point here that is worthy
of attention is the statement that the
they did not believe that Mr.. Morris
would offer more than $500,O0O
per annum, thus making an abiect
surrender of the revenue feature of the
proposition This is false, and here is
the proof: On the Goth of April, 1890,
when Mr.. Morris first proposition was
placed before the public, in reproducing
the same, we made the following edi
torial comment:
aOur views are that the best interests
of the State would be materially advanced
by the acceptance of the PROPOSE ton it stands,
prorided more money cannot De secured from
me same sostfcc-2ohac@ as R0t at3atshetg. In
that eyent-if more money can be secured-we
think the best interests of the State will be
advanced in proportion"
This is all we mad to say on that point
and it is sufficiently clear ana explicit to
eonclusiveiy demonstrate the falsity of
charge No. 3.
To distinctly charge and even to
abandantly prove" that both papers
favored the acceptance OF the lottery's
offer ought not to be such tremendous
undertaking. Nobody denies it.
A. The indiyiduaIo who wrote the
card could not even get plain state
ment of an indisputable fact down cor
rectly. The assertion that the partner
ship referred to 9isted for two years,
and up to Jan. 1p't, 1891, is notoriously
incorrect 1t makes no difference that
we can see; and we only refer 80 it to
show how near the truth the writer can
get Hhen referring TO this matter. As
to the moneys paid US by Mr.. Goodwin,
whose lips are sealed IN death, we have
this to say: The agreement between us
was that we would do the mechanical
work on the Democrat and Mr.. Goodwin
would do the editorial work, keep the
books, collect the accounts, &c. A copy
of that agreement is in the possession of
Mr.. Geo. o. Elms, the President of the
Clarion Co., before whom, as notary
,Ar, ! fni-
lows:
Now therefore the said parties have agreed
and do agree that the st. Landry Democrat
newspaper and job office shall be conducted as
foIloWs Goodwin takes editorial charge of
the Democrat with sole and exclusive control
as such; Is to do the reporting and clipping,
also mailing, soliciting, collecting, bookkeeping
and proof reading.
L. i j.. A. sandoz take entire charge of the
mechanical department of the newspaper
type setting, distributing, press work, 1mpos-
ing forms.
twenty dollars to be allowed for incidental
expenses, to be deducted from gross proceeds
OF office, toa--@o9f with forty dollars for rent,
making sixty dollars; balance of revenues of
office to be equally divided between the parties
OF the first and second parts
Now, if Mr.. Goodwin got money from
the lottery, as charged, we assume that
he legitimately earned it, without SELL
ing his opinions; and il he paid uss any
portion OF that money lt was because ne
considered lt part Or tue legitimate re-
venues OF the ONCE, to which we were
entltled-Whlch, We submit, would not
have been the case had ne received It as
the prlce OF MS editorial opinions
I, IL seems strange tnat MT. Elms-the
bosom friend OF Mr. GOODWIN, who llV-
ea under MS TQoI Tor years, and VINO
dIed I'D his arlais--Mr. Elms, who was
cognlzanI OF al these Iacts, should nave
permitted the Writer or the card to at
tempt to cast odlum, over bis own sig,
nature, upon the memory Of his dead
frlena, Ia order tilat a Iaint, far-feeched
and indirect suspicion might be thrown
upon US
Ihe card goes on 20 say that we, up
ridieuIous. Our readers are in nosses.
sion &c all the facts of the case, aud can
determine whether we could have re-
NAMED silent under such an outrageous
ltnputation as the Clarlon's frst article
confafheo. a. !, -,
y hops u ~ lisn VII a.5 p9iiese us algn
,isa ~ '.as aeass;tl ,s caagSonte5 e5prs ~
an, sre - ea'1)d % do NJ lass tl1an defana onr NJ
good name.
We beg to assure tie,genius who con-
sfrrnta.J fHicz 90 nj senS stfha nora