The Opelousas courier., 1904-01-16
The speech of the X Senaor is about

The speech Of the X Senaor is about
the weakest explanation Of an indie
fensible act ever made. MI. Blanch-
ard, remember, voted for the passage
Of the Wilson bill, after having made
a speech against its passage, and now
nine years afterwards, tries to razzle-
dazzle the sugar planters with a ode
tense" of his vote. Mr.. Blanchard
says that just before taking thevote,
The Sugar Planters Committee con-
vened to him and Gallery the infor-
nation that if they,--Caffery and
Blanchard, voted "No" on the bill,
Irby of South Carolina would vote no
and these three negative votes would
defeat the bill. Did Mr.. Blanchard
follow the instructions of the Sugar
Planters Committee? No. The names
of senators are called in alphabetical
order and necessarily Blanchard's
name would be called before Irby's
on the roll call. Mr.. Blanchard did not
vote-admitted so by him and proved
~ the record. He had been instruct
ed to vote emo" by the Sugar Plan
ters' Committee. Mr.. Irby therefore
seeing that Mr. Blanchard had voted
eyes" for the Wilson bill in the flee
Of instructions received by him fbm
the Sugar Planters Committee, Ron-
Guided that 'Ematters were off, and
very naturally voted "Yes' th1B en-
surfing the passage Of the Wilsch bill.
Thus it was that Nh. BlanchaH was
dubbed the "Cloak-Room Segator."
He had been instructed his bnstitu-
ents to vote against the wilson bill,
had promised to do 50 and dliberate-
~ voted for it. But Mr.. Bllnehard is
a politician and was not tIbe trapp-
ed thus easily in his duYieity.
The passage of the Xeklson bill it
will be remembered cauid great con-
sternation in Louisiana. IA large num-
Der of sugar planters turned their
backs on the old party hey had done
so much for, and Mr.. Blanchard came
in for a share Of the $dium and ex-
ecration Of those dayS "The rumor
got abroad" says MdBlanehard that
if he had voted "NsH' Mr.. Irby had
said that he (Irby) gould have voted
"No' too. What lGrby's letter to
Blanchard has to do With the latter ig-
noring the instructions of the Sugar
Planters Committeais left to the con-
lecture Of the rea[f. The fact that
Blanchard Dig berately Did Not
Vote On Roll Cali although instruct
ed so to do effedhally condemns the
Ex-senator Of ~fsfhlessness to the SUI
gar Interest of Louisiana. Roll call
been S3mpleted Mr.. Blanch-
ard then roseAn his seat and after
all the senaf rs had voted, Voted
Yes For The; Passage Of the Wilson
Bill. The fsEts are as taken from
speech. Nov regarding Mr.. IT.
W . ACtGCA 4 "uSC SIAAAc tu6 1utcill
gent reader bat it smaeks more Of an
writ pa as a matter of "Sen-
Cor tesy." Mr.. Blanchard
found hims,ff in a box and what was
easier thanJIo have the oblibing MI.
Irby to ind he a letter? IF Mr.. Trby
never hadsfany intention of voting
the Wilson bill what reason
the worn had the Sugar Planters
Committee an informing Mr.. Blanch-
ard that MI. Irby would vote emo"
and that he, Mr.. Blanchard, should
therefore also vote "No"? Did the
Sugar Planters Committee deliber-
lie to Mr. Blanchard? Or did
[rby fail to keep faith? The Sugar
Planters Committee was composed
# leading and reputable men most Of
whom are stBl living and stated that
Mr.. Irby did assure them that he
Rbuld vote against the Wilson bill. :
Mr. Irby is dead, and there is nothing
diSprove the statement of the Suger
Planters Committee but this letter
in 1895 and brought to light
n 1903. Like the famous Sherman
etter it is playing a celebrated part
n the political history of Louisiana.
The Sherman letter was declared to
'e myth. Can it be possible that the
rby letter is destined to play the
anne roll? Did the Sugar Planters
tell the truth to the SUI
ar planters7 Why did Blanchard
4ot vote "No" as instructed Why
i'd he wait nine years afterwards to
ring out the Irby letter. All these
nd similar questions must arise in
he minds of the reader and there is
0 question that Mr.. Blanchard has
allied to make out his defence and
6 stands convicted today before the
\