St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1892-03-05

have thrust upon their readers. upon tlelF own
motion and i'll which they, not the Clarion, are
chiefly inter estcd The public has doubtless
formed its opinion long since upon this ques.
ton, but it will have the benefit Of proof il
these individuals, who have so hotly rushed IN
to print, wish this controversy prolonged
While it is quite necessary that these news
papers, editors and publishers should at
tempt some explanation of their wide variance
from their own former opinions upon this
question, from the opinions or the vast major
ity OF the Democrats and people OF TINS parish:
the paragraphs quoted herein rom tnem VIII
not be accepted by the people as satisfactory
explanation. Here where these parties are
known these utterances will pass for nothing
more than silly braVado.
The erSgned are responsible for what ap'
pears i'll the st. Landry Clarion.
GEO. O. EIMS,
J. j. THOMPSON.
Z. S. FONTENOT,
l.. r. LEWIS
a. II. GENEREs,
Board OF Directors of the st. Landry Printing
and Publishing Company Limited.
We do not understand the simple reiteraton
of 1.-The truth of the editorial comment con
tanned therein" as a renewal of the offensive IN
situation which the card assumes was never
made and never had any existence; hence, we
are relieved of the painful necessity when
would otherwise exist OF cnaractcrlzinS tna1
iusnuation as we did before.
l. The first charge is a general one, specific
ally repeated in the 4th. We enter Il general
denial and pass Oh to the ID.
2. The writer Of the card could not have
been serious when lie ''charged' or assumed
that the attitude of 1.-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 course 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 I'M
deserved placing i'll a false position or the Oth-
ers who signed it, AS a matter fact, the Demo
crat, Under Mr.. GoodWin's administration, car
"A 4 1ntta pIy's a1y iSa
ginning and never opposed and denounced 1t.
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 reVOklng its charter III
1889 was being discussed, we favored the
movement; but since that corporation became
Embedded in the constitution OF 1879, recognlZ-
ing the futility ofany efforts to dlslodge it until
the expiration of its charter, we have regard
ed the Opposing and den0uncing" OF it as
therein. Having settled this point, to finally
dispose of No. 2, we may be permitted to add
that between 100000 per annum which the
State received in 1889, and one million and a
quarter which it will receive i'll 1895, there Is
siight difference which may account fer the
views of some people on the expediency OF
having a lottery in 1883 and i'll 1895.
8. The only point here that is worthy of at
tentiOn is the staten Mt that the editors OF the
Courier said that they did not believe Mr.
Morris would offer more than $5O0O00 per an
mum, thus making an AFFECT surrender Of the
revenue feature Of tie proposition" This is
false, and here is the proof: On the 26th Of
April, 1890. when Mr.. Morris first proposition
was placed before the public, in reproducing
the same, we made the following editorial
comment:
"Our views arc that the lest interests Of
the State would be materially advanced by
the acceptance OF the proposition as 1t stands,
prOritted more money canHOt DC secured from
The same s01rcc-WHich is not unlikely. In that
cvent-if more money can be secured-we think
the best interests OF the State will he advanced
in prOportion.'
This is all we had to say Oh that point, ard it
is sufficiently clear and explicit to conclusively
demonstrate the faisity of charge No. 3.
To ''distinctly charge" and even to abundant
ly prove that both papers favored the ac-
ceptance of the lOttery's offer ought not to be
such a tremendous undertaking. Nobody de
MES it.
4. The "individual" who wrote the card
could not even get plain statement OF an In
disputable fact down correctly. The assertion
that the partnership referred to existed for two
years. and UP to JAM list, 1891, is VIGOROUSLY
incorrect. 1t makes no difference that we can
see; and we only refer to it to show how near
the truth the writer can get When 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 &C
counts, etc. copy of that agreement is in the
nOSSeESlOn ".
of the Clarion Co., before whom, as notary pub
lie, it was passed. 1t reads as follows.
Now, therefore, the said parties have agreed
and do agree that the st. Landry Democrat
newspaper and job office shall be conducted as
follows: Goodwin takes editorial charge or the
Democrat with sole and exclusive control as
such Is to do the reporting and clipping, also
mailing, soliciting, collecting, bookkeeping and
proof reading.
al. & l.. 4. Saudoz take entire charge of the
mechanical department of the newspaper
type setting, distributing, press work, imposing
fOlmS.
Twenty dollars to be allowed for incidental
expenses, to be deducted from gross proceeds
Of office together with forty dollars for rent,
making sixty dollars; balance of revenue OF
office to be equally divided between the parties
Of the first and second part"
Now, If Mr.. Goodwin got money from the lot
terry, lis charged, we assume that he legitimate
ly earned it, without selling his opinions and
if he paid us any portion of that money it was
because he considered it part of the legitimate
revenues of the Office, to which we were ELL
titled-which we submit, would not have been
the case had he received it as the price OF his
editorial opinions.
1t seems strange that Mr. Elms-the bosom
friend OF Mr.. Goodwin, who lived undeEA his
roof for years, and who died III his armsSMr
Elms, who was c0gnizant o. all these facts,
should have permitted the writer of the card to
attempt to cast odiun, over his signature, upon
the memory of his dead friend, in order that a
faint, farfetched and indirect suspicion might
be thrown upon us!
The card goes on to say that we, "upon our
own notion" "have thrust this issde upon our
readers This is simply ridiculous. Our
readers are in possession OF all the facts of the
case, and can determine whether we could have
silent under such an outrageous im-
putation as the CariOns first article contained.
We hope all men will believe Us when We say
that we regretted most deeply the dire necessity
which confronted us, and coud do no less than
defend our good name.
We beg to assure the genius who constructed
this card that 1.-THE paraTraOS quoted therein
from them were not intended as "a satisfac-
tory explanation" of our course. What ought
to be satisfactory explanation thereof, how
ever, can be found III our columns each week,
and at the head Of those columns, unlike the
Clarion, will be found the name of The respon-
sible editor.
We also beg to correct one of the concluding
sentences of the card and to say that here,
IN this parish, where we were born and raised,
It is perfectly well known that our utterances
Oh this subject were not "sily bravado."
LEONCE SANDOZ Editor Courier.
l.. A. SANDoZ. Editor Democrat.