The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1892-03-05
GEO. o. ELMs,
J. j. THOMPSON,
L. s. FONTENOT,
f. 7. LEWIS,
A q" Trrrnpc
Board Of Directors of the ST. Landry Printing
and Publishing CompanY Limited.

hUdiu Ol DlEGtlOfS OF Tie St. Landry printing
and Publishing Company Limited.
We do not understand the simple reiteration
of "the truth of the editorial comment con-
tanned therein as q renewal of the offensive in
sinuation which the card assumes was never
made and never had any existence hence, we
are relieved of the painful necessity which
would otherwise exist of characterizing that
insinnation as we did before.
/. The first charge is general one, specific
ally repeated in the 4th. We enter a general
denial and pass on to the 3D.
O. The WRITER of the card could not have
been serious when he "charged' or assumed
that the attitude of ''the former owner and ed
itor" of the Democrat, who leased the concern
over a year before the lottery PROPOSE
ton came up for discussion, could possibly have
any bearing upon the cOu Sc or opinions of the
party to whom he leased it. This assumption,
allegation, or whatever it may be, is unworthy
of the man who wrote the card and is an un-
deserved placing in false position of the Oth-
ers who signed it. AS a matter fact, the Demo-
erat, Under Mr.. G0odwlns administration, car
ried the lottery's advertisement from the be-
ginning and never opposed and denounced" it.
We submit it makes absolutely no difference
what was the attitude of his predecessor toward
that concern. AS to the attitude of the Courier
towards the lottery, we have only to say that
when the question OF revoking its charter In
movement; but since that corporation became
imbedded in the constitution of 1879, recogniz-
ing the futility ofany efforts to dislodge it until
the expiration of its charter, we have regard
,nern Gu rno damagoris a,,d bnTa tai7an M nart
therein, Having settled this noinf, to finally
dispose of No. 2. we may be permitted to add
Stata receiVed in $3.50 and one million and a
Gusrter which if will receive in 1so5. there is
a slight difference which may account for the
having q lotteryr in 1a7ao and in 1aa5
n' . The opiU 91oint here that ia worthy of at
tention is the statement that the editors of the
Mnrris wouid offer more than $500 O0f1 per an
pnm ..tbus making an ahiect surrender of the
revenue l feature Of tie proposition." This is
fe1so and hare ia tho nroof. IN fba 9eth of
AMI 1900 when Mr. Morris frat nrnnosition
- ,Iaoed baforn tlia nubiic in renradneing
nc "' Same We maaa the foi,oWino editorial
cnmment.
49,. .--.-- =
Our views are that tine nest interests OF
the State Wonld he materially advanced ~
the acceptance OF the pfoposltlon as III stands'
prorided mere money cannot be secured from,
the same soHfce-1rh'ch IS not uhttHeLy. In tnat
eyent-if more money can oe secured-We thlnR <
the best interests OF tue STATE VIII DC aaFdneea
in proportion"
This ia a1I we had TO say on that noint, and 1t
il sufficiently clear and explicit to conclusiyely
demonstrate the falsity of charge No. 8.
To "distinctly charge" end even to abundant
ly ''prove" that both papers favored the ac-
ceptance of the lottery 9 offer ought not TO ne
such tremendous hhdeflaKlhg. NoDoey de'
nies it: go
4. The "indiyldual who wrote the cara
could not even get plain statement OF an IN
dlsputanle fact down correctly. me asseftloll
that the partnership referred to existed for TWO
years. and MP to Ian. 1st, 1891, Is VIGOROUSLY
incorrect IL makes no dlnefence that we caii
see; and we only refer to 1t to show now near
the truth the writer can get When referring 10
this matter. AS to the moneys paid us Dy MI.
Goodwin. whose lips are sealed IN death, we
have this to say Ihe agreement betWeen US
was that we Tonld 90 the mechanlcai WORK on
the Democrat and Mr.; Goodwin Would 90 the
edltnrlal WORK, Keep tlle DOCKS, coiIect tiio az
counts etc. copy OF IhaI agreeihebh ls ~ ~ tHt m
possession or ME- Geo. y. Elms, the PFesiuen'
of the Clarion Co, before whom, as notary pho
lie, it was passed 1t reads as follows
Now therefore, the SAID partles nave agfees
and do agree tnat the st. Landry Demoefal
newspaper ana 1ob once shall pc conauetea a, as
follows: GOODWIN taxes edltorlaI charge o! Tue
Deinocrat Win sole ana exclusive controi as
such Is 10 uo tne feportlng ana Gllpping, aist M
mailing, solcltlng, collectlng, bookkeeping ahe
PROOF eea"lnSe ,.t.o o,,,,,cro oe +b.
L q u, a. Sahuo1 tthe eHtire lf enaI so VI ~ .aiS
inecnanleal 9epart!uenI VI tne I,cM.spapS;,@ ppps;.,
type settng' distributing, press WORK. linposlns
folns. -. 4;aor+a
IWehty u9naIs 70 ue alaoWeu lua in0.uen.da oeaade
eApenseS, W w ueuuGIea LlonI SLoso Eaooo. a.s
OF GTnce togetneF WIN IoTty aoilats LoL leh.
making sl1ty uoilars, 5aiahce VI tssenao ~. ~
onigo y De e49 VI 1tuou e4 po'" =, GEL 'no
OF tue hrst anu second part.
Now. ii Mr.. Goodwin got money from the lot
terry, as charged. we assume that he legitimate
if he paid lis any portion of that money it wa:
because he considered it part OF the legitimate
revenues OF the ONCE, to Whle9 we We're en