San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1884-03-06

not tho Sheriff explain
o, He fails 10 explain why, afte
. tho ironing of the prisoners, a guar
was still thought necessary and isye
retained, at mn expense 10 the count,
Of oyer 500 per quarter An OK
: planatioa OF this, too, would seem b
be in order.
@. Lastly, he fails 10 explain why
after IN expose OF eiails horrors, il
crowded condition, etc, had beer
made, no remedial steps have beer
taken. Nearly a full month has elaps
ed, and il remains in the precise con
dition to-day that it was then--only
IL any difference, more crowded. Docs
not this apparent indifference to OF
contempt for the demands Of law
humanity and public sentiment cal
for explanation :
In view of all these remarkable
omissions in Mr.. BARRIERS so-called OK
plantations, we ask, is it not highly in
cumbent upon him again to "rise and
explain" Will he do SO? We
shall see.
Mr.. Barber appears to be haunted
by tho ghost of Paul G. Hudson, who
recently suicided in his jail, as he
terms it,, devoting nearly one third
of his article to him. The Sheriff
makes another immaterial point in
arguing that Hudson was bad man
a fact which he frankly confessed,
blaming no one but himself. But
it does not therefore follow that he
did not tell the truth about "my jail, "
which is the question with which the
people are mainly concerned. Mr..
Barber also immaterially insists that
Hudson was not impelled to suicide
by his treatment in Jail, one of his
letters showing that he had contem-
plated it for six months. But in his
letter to his mother, published in the
FREE PRESS, he says ~ long to die.
I abhOr the present suffering 'ohich IS
being heaped upon me, and cannot
endure it longer" The above reads
very much like his surroundings and
treatment might have confirmed and
hastened his decision to destroy him
self. Certainly they were not calcu-
lated to make any one greatly in
love with life.
Apropos, it is an open secret here,
that besides the letters which appear
ed in the FREE Press, Hudson wrote
another to be delivered to Mr.. Barber,
who, for reasons best known to him
self, destroyed it. Not only 80, but
it was evidently q great grief to him
that he could not have suppressed
the others. The publication of them
was the avowed ground of his abus-
i've talk and threats of personal vio-
lence towards the editor of this pa
paper on the public square, in which
his language and demeanor were such
as he might be presumed to use
towards "mutinous" occupant of
one of the cells of the model institu
ton on Purgatory over which he en-
tertains jurisdiction. We have rea-
son to believe that he has ere this
realized that he made grave mistake
in this performance, the best people
everywhere very generally condemn
ing it. They very justly regard
it as more than personal matter,
involving as it does the freedom of
the press, and the accountability of
officials to the people through free
criticism of their public acts. They |
10 not accept the sentiment, "the ser
want is greater than his master |
Mr.. Barber speaks of "maudlin
for prisoners charged with
rhine rs too prevalent We do not
link any fair minded person who
will look ut the character and man
.gemcnt of our jails and penitentia-
les, will conclude there is any too
much sympathy of any sort for their
Mr.. Barber charges us with be-
onging to 'clique." We know of
10 clique in this county save that
represented by him, and which we
orbear to characterize.
We now take leave of Mr.. Sheriff
Barber, at least until he again rises
o explain.
Col. BARLOW, the new proprietor of
he Austin Statesman, has succeeded
- .>F ]