St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1909-02-20
GUILLORY ON
GIL DUPRE and
DIVISION
Vile Platte. La. Feb. 18th 1909.


Editor Clarion:-In you usual kind
and big-hearted way, if you will be 50
good as to give this letter as pro-
minent q place ID your paper as that
of Hon. Gilbert Z. Dupre in your is
sue Of the Clarion, dated the 18th
inst, i will remember the kindness.
Hon. G.. E. Dupre makes the asser-
tion That the divisionists admit the
proposed line of division is wrong as
it stands embodied in the Enabling
Act and that they promise the people
to change lines after division carries =
Hon. G. E. D. evidently got hold Of
hashed up portions of some asser-
lions | personally made while III con-
versation with some friends IN Ope
lousas. i then remarked that 0pe-
lougas cannot, through any ex-mem-
Der of it's erstwhile Protective Lea
que, consistently nor honestly, assail
the line of division as it stands OPP
posite 0pelousas, for the simple rea-
son and fact that the venerable Mr..
e. II. Lewis ais head Of that league,
assisted by the balance Of bis delega-
ton at Baton Rouge, ere the ones
responsible for the line of division as
designated in the Act from the AGA
dia line to a point a little south Of
Debayon's bridge. I further asserted
that we the diVisionists, had drawn
the line Of the proposed division by
which, the neighborhood of Mallet
was left to the old parish, because
that neighborhood enjoyed the natur-
al lay of high lands and easily well
kept roads to 0peloueas, whereas
they would be forced TO traverse
swamp woods if forced to go west.
But the 0pelousas Protective League
contingency prevailed over the
EYangeline Parish Club contingency
and assumed the responsibility Of
forcing the line where il is designat-
ed between 0pelousas and Mallet.
I further asserted that I was still
of the opinion that an unnecessary
hardship was forced upon the Mallet
people and that as in the outset +
would continue To exert my friendly
offices in their behalf, and if division
carries, as it Ii sure to carry. I pro-
pose to ask our Legislators to offer
an Enabling Act with q view Of vet
ing back those people to the old par
ish. The foregoing / the whole
facts in j few words, and whether or
not either or any of the legislators
made a statement on the subject, I
know not, but the Dupre letter is 30
thoroughly characteristic in catching
the wrong statements at the right
time. that ! presume they have not
The cap seems to 6t my own personal
remarks IN a casual conversation. I
will caution the public, however. that
II do not Intentionally nor technically
admit that the incorporation Of Mallet
within the New Parish is unjust il the
sense that it takes too much terri-
tory from the old parish; We have
asked for less than half the territory
of our present parish, and as the
line stands designated.we will get less
than half Of the swamp lands and
positively less than half of the open
territory, Notwithstanding Mr.. Lewis
statements to the contrary.
Division IS now beyond q doubtful
problem, it is practically an assured
chapter of our future history, and
while the west is deeply impressed
with their own convenience, and
worse needs in this matter, ] will
echo and re-eeho if need be, that the
west generally is not asking for 2
division Of friendly and business re-
lation from old 0pelousas, nor from
any community in the old parish.