PROVIDENCE. RI -- Renewed talk by state lawmakers of allowing full-scale casino gambling has sparked "a few questions'' from Matthew Thomas, the leader of the Narragansett Indian's defeated drive to open a Harrah's financed casino in West Warwick.

"I was just wondering a few things before these wheels go into motion,'' the chief sachem said in an e-mail today, after reading a Journal story today reporting that the past and present chairmen of the General Assembly's Lottery oversight commission believe lawmakers should give voters another chance to vote on casino gambling, and specifically on turning Twin River and Newport Grand into full-fledged casinos.

"Will there be a bidding process put together by the General Assembly to insure the State gets the best deal?'' Thomas asked. "Will there be an entity in place that would oversee or guard the 'hen house' and how would it be implemented? Would it simply be regulated by the lottery commission or another board consisting of various entities such as someone from the [attorney general's office] and other officials to make sure the hens are watched?''

He said he also found it "interesting'' that even Rep. John McCauley, a member of the Lottery oversight commission, said he voted against the Narragansetts' 2006 proposal on the ballot because it included a so-called "slippage clause'' in which the state protected Twin River and Newport Grand against losses resulting from the opening of a competiing casino.

"In other words it was designed to fail, but some of us knew that,'' he said.

"Lastly, maybe the U.S Attorney should look into this whole issue,'' he suggested. "Here is my reasoning, [the late] Senator Chafee attaches a rider knocking the Tribe out of gaming, 2) The state supreme court rules all gaming in RI is considered a lottery and therefore a casino is a lottery and must be run by the state when the Tribe pursues a referendum....3) The Tribe follows this ruling and the concern becomes "what is the deal"? No one knows what they are voting on and who will oversee the facility, but before that is considered the assembly sticks in the "slippage" clause, scares the public that their golden goose will be cooked and presto! It fails.''

"People may say this is sour grapes by the Tribe, but I say it's a strategy that was used to shut us out of gaming while the state set the table to eventually have what they want. No competition. In any event it smells,'' he said.

In actuality, the so-called Chafee amendment did not block the Narragansetts from introducing gambling on their own land in South County, but it required them to seek the same statewide and local voter-approval a commercial developer would need. They never chose to pursue a full-scale casino on their own land, and a U.S. Supreme Court decision released today effectively ends any plans they might ever have had to put a casino on 31-acres of land-in-trust in Charlestown.