St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1891-02-21
CARD.


expended large amount of money. Some
has proved value received, while some ha!
proved moneylnst;" and they do not wisi
to invest any more cash in Louisiana pa
pers, that belong to the class of .money
lost" In controlling the press of the State
Mr. Morris expected to control public opin
ion. Up to the time the CLARION beguT
publication here, the press of this parish
shouted for the Lottery; but when public
ward elections and parish convention las
September, the result was overwhelmingly
against the Lottery. So in regard to this
parish, Mr.. Morris could exclaim: money
LOST
The editor of the st. Landry Demo
crat, Mr.. J.. A. Sandoz, and the editor
of the OpelouSas Courier, Mr.. Leonce
Sandoz, have in IA cir respective edi.
tions of the 14th insSAaSea that article
as pretext for the use 4f the follow
ing abusive epithets towards imagina.
ry persons: -
AS one Of the press of this parish" the
Courier don't propose to allow this covert
insinuation to 60 unnoticed. and will take
occasion to say that if it is the intention
of the writer of the paragraph above quo
ted to convey the meaning that our course
ii
not actuated by pure motives, and an hon
est conviction that it was for the good of
the State, or that our opinions had been
bought by Mr. Morris or anybody else, we
hereby brand it as contemplate, sneak
ing, cowardly lie
Now, take this to mean that the opin-
ions of the editors of the papers of this par
ish who advocated the adoption of the lot
a Ia n II
by Mr.. Morris. The article does not charge
this specifically in straightforward, man
ly way, ,0but that is the impression it leaves
on the mind of the reader. / do not know
who the editor of the CLARION is; Vh fact,
it is understood that it has several editors
But as | was associate editor of the Courier
last year. and as such advocated the sub
mission to and adoption by the people of
this amendment / have this to say: If the
writer of this article, whoever he be, means
to intimate, insinuate or charge that in do
ing so | was actuated by any other than
pure, honest and conscientious motives !;
II he means that my opinion on this ques-
tion was bought by Mr.. Morris or anybody
else, | denounce him as an infamous liar,
a contemplate slanderer and cowardly
and pusillanimous scoundrel.
L. A. SANDoz.
We, the undersigned, hereby reiter-
ate and assert the truth of the edito-
rial comment contained therein, and
as the Messrs. Sandoz are apparently
anxious to find out with whom they
have to deal in this matter and to as
sert their honesty in supporting the
lottery, even in the absence of any
charge Of dishonesty, we, without the
prefix "if," hereby distinctly charge
and can prove:
lst. The use of money by the Lot
terry Company to control the press of
this parish in its interest, and that it
was corruptly paid and corruptly re-
.eived is the general belief among the
people here.
Cd. That the st. Landry Democrat
under its former owner and editor,
and the Courier, under its present edi-
tors and owners, opposed and denoun-
ced the Louisiana Lottery during
several years, as corrupt corporation
and dangerous factor in the politics
IF the State.
Sd. That Immediately upon the pub
ication of the proposition of John A.
Morris, to pay to the State S5OO,OOO
per annum, for renewal of the char
ter of said Lottery Company, both OF
these papers became its advocates and
biologists, and that the Courier, own
ID and edited at the time by L. & J..
A. Sandoz, made haste to advise the
to accept that proposition,
saying that it's editors did not believe
hat Mr. Morris would offer any moe
thus making more abject and com
olete surrender Of the revenue feature
If the proposition than was ever adj
iocated by any other lottery paper Or
PARTISAN of the Lottery Company.
4th. That the two editors and own
srs of the Courier, became interested
n the St. Landry Democrat under its
ease to Z. P. Goodwin, and were his
partners in publishing that paper dur
ng its entire lease for two years end
ng January lst 1891, and that the
Lottery Company, paid $500 in cash
or the use of its editorial columns in
advocacy of its recharter, and that one
,f the editors of the Courier received
more than one-haIf Of this $500.
Whether the editors of the Courier
md st. Landry Democrat are honest
or not in their advocacy of the Lot
cry, does not concern the CLARION or
he undersigned. 1t is an issue they
nave thrust upon their readers, upon
heir own motion and in which they,
lot the CLARION, are chiefly interest
d. The public has doubtless formed
is opinion long since upon this ques-
ion, bat it will have the benefit of
,roof if these individuals, who have SO
lotly rushed into print, wish this con-
roversy prolonged.
While it is quite necessary that
hese newspapers, editors and publish
rs, should attempt some explanation
If their wide. variance from their own
ormer opinions upon this question,
rom the opinions of the vast majority
# the Democrats and people of this
parish, the paragraphs quoted herein
rom them will not be accepted by the
,eople as satisfactory explanation.
Iere where these parties are known
hese utterances will pass for nothing
more than silly bravado.
The undersigned are responsible for
What appears in the ST.. LANDRY CLA
ZION.
GEORGE O. ELMs,
J. ]. THOMPSON,
T. S. FoNTENoT,
E. 7. LEWIS,
A. III. GENEREs.
Board of Directors of the
II. LANDRY PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
COMPANY LIMITED.