Year: 1860

clude yourself in the category Of animals called
whang-doodles. Then, sir, we would both be
in the same class then kettle would not be
looking at pot with expressions Of contemptu-
GUS ridicule and ludicrous scorn, and telling
him that he is black but on the contrary, we
would strike hands in token of mutual fellow
ship; this useless alteration would cease, and
we would be laboring together to make the
world believe that the whang-doodle class is
something above common, and entitled to the
favorable consideration Of mankind.


But to be serious, pity the weakness and
scorn the motive that induces any man to
lug into an alteration like this, q satire on a
religious order, for the express purpose OF
making me appear contemplate, and diverting
the mind of the reader from the true matter at
issue.


We shall be compelled to pass over many Of
the assertions and accusations in your long
article as unworthy Of notice, and direct our
attention to your complaint Of our injustice in
misquoting you and Of misunderstanding your
meaning.


In the second column Of your article you
assert that we do you injustice by charging
that you had published "That you were can
didatc before the Police Jury for the clerkship
of that body that you were entitled to 1t from
superior qualifications" &c. y


wish the reader to keep in mind that said
this was feature in your article; or, in other
words (if you will allow me to cxplain), it was
an inference drawn. from it. That your first
article had this feature in it, every one could
see most clearly. For instance i'll am con-
didate for office, and should have occasion to
complain of my defeat, Of course have some
ground, either real Or imaginary, upon which
to base that complaint; and my complaining
(did not assert the facD is the best evidence
that think myself better qualified than my
opponent, or more deserving, Or more needy
than he and I must think that those who
voted against me did not weigh either my
qualifications, merit orneccssity in we'll bal
anced scale, or that they were unjustly preju-
diced against me.


We now call the attention Of the reader to
that part of your article in which you again
accuse us,of doing you injustice, as we'll as
Judge Richardson, who is in no way connected
with this matter. You say that in the extract
we made from Vol. 3, No. &c of your paper
that we clearly perverted your meaning. Now,
l shall prove that Judge Richardson passed
this condemnation upon the Police Jury, or
that you have misquoted him. For this pur-
pose, shall require you to re-publish your
article under the date above referred TO, entire.
And in order that you may not again mistake
the Grand Jury's Report for your own, I will
copy yours into this communication.


In speaking of the Grand Jurors Report
you say:


"The unequiyocal language used in this doc
| umcnt relative to the condition OF the parish
prison. will be regarded by every public.spirit.-
ed citizen Of the parish, in the least informed
| that building, as every way warranted by facts.
His honor, Judge Richardson. was. equally
warranted in expressing his decided reluctance
| to incarcerating prisoner in prison where
death might cnsue. and he thus become acces-
sorry to murder. The members Of the Police
Jury come in for q severe condemnation for
their Indifference in this matter, which condem-
| nation amounts as nearly as it could be made
| to a regular indictment! A nice state Of at





| do, now that they are arraigned on an indct-
ment for studied neglect Of official duties? We
! pause for a reply"


| have examined the foregoing article with
all the ability that have, and am forced to
the conclusion that you have made Judge
4 Richardson the author of this condemnation,
which you say "amounts as nearly as can be


to regular indictments" nor could I, or any
one else, (aside from what you say Of your


meaning,) by aid of context, reflection, or con-
lecture, possibly arrive ut any other conclu-


sion. The relation of sentences or words is


asccrtaincd only by the position in which they


stand. Judge Richardson, the speaker, is here


made to express /" a decided reluctance to in.
| generating prisoner" &c. Immediately fol


lowing the foregoing sentence, and depending


omit, is "The members of the Police Jury


come in for severe condemnation" &c. We


ask from whom? We are answered, from Judge
Richardson, of course. And in order to show
my sincerity, and that this is the sense of the
sentence in question, am willing to leave il
Ito two Of the best grammarans in the town o


Vernon, for am confident that no gentleman
who values his reputation for scholarship woult
! decide otherwise than that Judge Richardson
said this thing, or that you have misquotet
him. But admit, for the sake of the argument
7 (as you would have it, that the Grand Jury
: and not Judge Richardson, had preferred thi
: bill of indictment against the Police Jury
r then, we ask you if the Grand Jury has tn
s right to indict the Police Jury. You tell u
: that our porvcrsion Of your language cvince
B, our ignorance of law. am no lawyer-I hay
G never studied law. did not say that Judg
e Richardson or any one else had the right
# indict the Police Jury; but only said that thi
: was the sense Of your language.


). Near the margin of your paper, in the set
o ond column of your article, you say: "W
II hope he will not go into retirement thereupol
6 for such an event would be public calamit.
II sure as you're born, sister W." We notice th
d part of your argument (as we suppose you teri
e iD merely to express our contempt of that bi
N tcrncss of mind of him who could thus be inh
N enced to introduce into wrangle like this tt
T. name Of lady of refined sensibiity and de-
le cacy, and who ranks in the first class of fena
II society, for the sake of dividing respectf
n denomination, and with the view of letting +