St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1891-08-29
The Sherifs Gard.

Sheriff Fontenot publishes in the last
issue of the Clarion card which takes
up almost two columns, and which is so
singular tissue of misstatements and
distortions OF facts that we cannot be-
lieve he could have been induced to at
fix his signature thereto had he not been
blinded by prejudice, frenzied i pas
sion and carried away by an insane hope
to divert attention from the viable
predicament in which he has placed
himself in his efforts to make his paper
a paying investment at the expense OF
the delinquent tax payers. While what
he says, even it true, would not in the
slightest degree excuse his action in now
requiring dellnQuentS to pay tCenty
times as much as they should be asked
to pay as advertising costs; and while
we are perfectly aware that he has
seized upon this subject merely to- di-
vert attention from his indefensible
course in that matter, We will, as brief
ly as we can, expose the falslty of the
most material statements in his card, in
order to show to what desperate straits
he has been reduced in his fruitless ef-
forts to hide away from the consequent
ces OF his acts.
10 begin-in his labored attempt to
prove the affirmative of his absurd
charge that the Courier was paid twice
in 1888 for advertising tax sales-once by
the delinquents whose property was sold
and then 10y an "extra allowance out of
parish funds "-he simply makes fool
of himself. The truth is the Courier's
bill for that work was $770, and all that
it ever received on that account was a
part of the $470 which the parish allow
ed the collector under that head of
printing-but which was not all for
printing. The Courier made no charge
per name-neither $2.20 nor any other
amount-but simply d lawful, regular
charge of $770 against the collector
and received about half pay. The Sher-
itf7s statement that the Courier received
any extra allowance whatever is there
ed several times in one form or another
in his card, that it extOrted excessive
charges" and received compensation
"largely in excess y" more than dou-
b!e that now received by the Clarion,
is also equally untrue. 1t is also untrue
that the publication of the proceedings
of the Police Jury and ordinances of
that body heretofore cost the taxpayers
Of the parish annually about six to eight
hundred dollars" and it would still be
untrue if he had included i'll the servi-
ces performed the publication of the
registration and election notices, orders
of court and jury lists. 1t is also untrue
that heretofore the publication of the
proceedings and ordinances OF Opelou-
sas cost the taxpayers of the town an
nually about three or four hundred dol
lars,' and it would still be untrue if lie
had included in the services performed
all other advertising for which the town
pays. Here are several issues of ver-
acity," Mr.. Sheriff. We challenge you
to the proof. But, of course, you will
not attempt to prove your statements.
Ii you do not know that your state
mehts are untrue, you will find it out
before you proceed far in your investi-
cations, and having placed them before
your readers you will he content to let
the matter drop.
The Sheriff pretends to think that
our exposure of his course in compell-
ing deIinquents to pay $500 for what
we offered to do for ten cents was made
solely through spite against him, and
says 1.-The Messrs. sandoz have had no
kind feelings or just words for me in
many years past.S Our answer is, the
files of the Courier-no further back
than 1SSS-S9 and 1990-furnish a mute
but conclusive proof that this also is
untrue.
Now, before the Sheriff rushes madly
into print again, we wish to warn him
that " all is not gold that glittels," and |
things are not always what they seem.
He has been wofully misled by some of |
his wicked partners into making
some very rash and incorrect state
ments, and his so-called conclusive |
evidence" though documentary, is
only circumstantial and practically
worthless as proof of his assertions. II |
he desires more light on the subject,
he may possibly obtain it from his
predecessor and the State Auditor. We /
have in our possession facts and fig
ures, files and documents to prove our
assertions.