The Caucasian., 1911-05-30
JOE LEWIS COMPLAINT
He Is as a Boy Passing a Graveyard
WhistIing to Keep up His Courage.
A Case Without a Parallel.

ing, and Attorney Joseph H. Levy
seemingly, is one Of this class. Al
least this conclusion is warranted by
his precipitating himself unheed-
ingly into the ring with a whoop-la
It was generally assumed that At
tOrney Levy had acquired recently
notOriety sufficient to satisfy him
| for years. In an article in the Times
of Monday, May %, Attorney Levy,
who represents the brewery, strives
at a parallel of the contention of to-
day with that of the legal question
of 1908. In 1908 there was no at
tempt to take undue advantages in
the selection Of commissioners and
clerks of the election as in 1914.
In 1908 there was no effort at the
disfranchisement of old citizens and
Confederate Veterans on the most
trifling of technicalities.
In each of these two efforts there
was displayed the supreme of aq-
dacity by some of the individuals
representing the Ants of whom At
torney Levy was their file leader.
I will admit that in the campaign
of 1908 I was one of the leaders of
| that election, as | am now of the
present campaign with Judge Hall
anu other gentlemen of good sub
stantial character and moral stand
ing, but will refute most emphati-
calIy any implication, suggested by
inference, as to any dishonest or any
unwarranted action being taken by
lmy colleagues or by myself.
It is notable that in this campaign
some of the leaders and the imputed
speakers on the Anti or saloon side
have INDUCED more in villiflcatlOn
and abuse of the church, the minis
TRY and of the prohibitionists than
in arguments which appeal to rea-
son and common sense.
In his last article Attorney Levy
makes no reference to the COM
Imissioners and the clerks of the
lelection, especially as these applied
| to the city wards, and until ''purged
had been unfairly apportioned, nor
Ibid he allude to the effort at the
disqualification of Pros on techni-
IcaIities, but he is loud in his call of
the record of 1908. And in his eager
Iness he has issued a challenge to
any one to show any difference be-
tween the action of 1908 and the ac-
tion of today.
Attorney Levy's plant is that in
1908, $50 white voters were dlsddall-
flied on mere technicality. In this
lease and in similar instances in this
Icampaign he is playing to the gal
llery AS an attorney Mr.. Levy
Ishould know, and he does knew, that
1.-THE law required the closing of the
| registration thirty days preceding
an election, and this law was en-
forced and is being enforced in this
election by Registrar Ward. There
fore for this election, as in the cleo
ton OF 1868, the voter who has failed
to register within thirty days pre-
Iceding the election has disqualified
himself.
From Attorney Levy's plant ht
would leave the impression that Tho
lt50 voters who disqualified them
iselyes by failure to register in 1905
as is required by law, were all gooC
land true Ants and loyal saloonite'
who were grossly and outrageousls
deprived of their rights and theil
personal liberty by lot of "fanati-
Icaf Pros.
I How ridiculous would this b,
from an ordinary layman, but thi
:. inference is from an attorney-at.
law.
In his effort to sustain his plain
Mr.. Levy says:
AS to the proof of the disfran
chisement of over $50 voters we rel
on the record before the police jur,
and the record in the case of ]. /
Hagens VS.. Police Jury.
In that case the attorneys of re
cord. Hon. j. d. Wilkinson an
Judge E. w. Sutherlin, had tn
proof, but the prohibitionists filed
technical plea of No Cause of Ac
ton and the case was dismissed.
Hence, no proof was made, but
). could have been made, and | refe
Mr.. Grosjean to Judge Sutherlin an
Mr.. Wilkinson for the proof
Is not this a reflection and a dis
credit of the court?
The logic of some of the Ants an
the saioonites is surprising.
3 From their Interpretation, the la
which operates against them is VI
: fair and oppressive, and should /
: disregarded and ignored.
This contention is supported b