The Opelousas courier., 1891-02-28
A Gard.

he last issue OF the st. Landry Cla-
rlon contained a remarkable card, signed
by the Board of Directors of the Clarion
Prlntlng Co, in reply to what the edi-
tors OF the Democrat and Courier had
TO say IN reference to the false and
coWardly lnsinuations contained in an
editorial article published in the Clarion
OF the 18th. While this card is remarka-
bic IN several respects, it is chiefly
so by reason of its unfairness aud LACK
OF Candor and the studied but ground
less attempt to besmirch the names and
regulations of those who, by their
standing In this community are con
stant, living menace to the success of
the selfish schemes OF certain men. We
Will take up SeraGtim the so-called
charges made in this card and pre-
faced by what is intended to be grand
flourish OF trUmpets, and, we think,
show conclusiVely their utter insuffi-
cheney to justify any suspicion of
wrong doing on our part.
After quoting the paragraph which
contained the insinuation which we
branded as he-which paragraph, we
venture to say, not one of the signers
of this card saw before it appeared in
print-the card goes on to say that the
editors OF the Courier and Democrat
eA1oCu Hb1b dt OiCiC dc. a pI6lGAO lOE LnG
use of the following abusive epithets
towards imaginary persons y {" imagin-
ary persons y is good J and then gives
what. the two editors had to say on the
subject. Butt it is perhaps best to give
the card in full. Here it is:
The following editorial article appeared in
the st. Landry Clarion of February 7th, 1881:
Mr.. Lalling, the private secretary of Mr..
Morris, says: 8. We tthe Lottery now control
the press of the State, for which we have ex-
pended large amount of money. some has
proved valued received, while some has proved
money lost; f" and they do not wish to invest
any more cash in Louisiana papers, that belong
to the class OF money lost" In controlling
the press OF the State, Mr.. Morris expected to
control public opinion. Up to the time the
Clarion begun publication here, the press of
this parish shouted for the Lottery but when
public opinion was expressed IN the Democra-
tic ward elections and parish convention last
September, the result was overwhelmingly
against the Lottery. SO IN regard TO this
lost
The editor of the st. Landry Democrat, Mr..
l.. A. Sandoz, and the editor of the 0pelousas
Courier, Mr.. Leonce Sandoz, have in their re-
spective editions OF the l4th inst used that ar
ticle as a pretext for the following abusive
epithets towards imaginary persons
As one of " the press of this parish" the Cou-
rier don't propose to allow this covert insinua-
ton to go unnotieed, and will take occasion to
say LildG Is Gue lQJenllOn OF Ble WfiGCF
the paragraph above quoted to convey the
meaning that our course in regard to the Lot
terry amendment was not actuated by pure
motives, and an honest 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 a contemplate,
sneaking cowardly de
Now, I take this to mean that the opinions of
the editors OF the papers of this parish who
advocated the adoption Of the lottery amend
1Sr1fl a5fr AZ Vfre NH nv y
The article does not charge this specifically III
a straightforward, manly way, but that is the
impression it leaves on the mind OF the reader.
/ do not know who the editor of the Clarion Isl;
in fact, it Is understood that it has several ed
itors But us | was associate editor OF the
Courier last year, and as such advocated the
submission to and adoption by the people OF
this amendment, | have this to say LII the
writer of this article, whoever he be, means to
intimate, insinuate or charge that in doing SO
/ was actuated by any other than pure, honest
and conscientious motives if he means that
my opinion ON this question was bought by Mr.
Morris or anybody else, ! denounce him as an
infamous liar, acontemptlble Sianderef and q
eewardly and pusillanimous seonndrel.
l. a. sASDoz.
We. the undersigned, hereby relterate and
assert tile truth of the editorial comment con-
tanned therein, and as the Messrs Sandoz are
apparently anxious to find out with whom they
have to deal in this matter and to assert their
honesty in supporting the lottery, even IN the
absence of any charge of dishonesty, we, With
and can prove:
1st The use of money by the Lottery Conn
pany to control the press OF this parish in its
Interest, and that it was corruptIy paid and
corruptly received is the general belief among
the people here.
| adj That the ST. Landry Democrat under its
former owner anG editor, and the Courier,
under its present editors and owners, opposed
and denounced the Louisiana Lottery during
h paos of he tae
sA sd. That Immediately upon the publication
of the proposition OF John A. Morris 10 pay TO
the State s500.0o0 per annun1, for q lcrewas %
the charter OF said Lottery CoLLp4Ilv, }aIh d
these papers became its alToc4las a4ld apoi0g-
lists, and that the Courier, owned and edited at
the time by L. dS l.. A. Sandoz, made haste TO
advise the Legislature to accept that PROPOSE
tion saying that its editors did not believe that
Mr.. Morris would offer any lnore-thus making
a more ahjeeS and complete surrender of the
ever advocated by any obher lottery paper or
partisan OF the Lottery Company.
4th That the two editors ana owners OF the
i Courier, became interested In the 5t. Landry
Democrat under its lease 10 Ei Z. Goodwin, and
were lispartners in publishing that paper dur
i ing its entire lease for two years ending Janu-
ary lst 1891, and that tie Lottery Company
paid $500 in cash for the OF its editorial col
unns in advOeaey OF It's recharte and that aile
of the editors Of the Courier received more than
I one-half OF this $500.
Whetller the editors OF the Courier and St.
7 Landry Democrat are honest or not IN their adj
vocacy of the Lottery, does not concern the
Clarion or the undersigned. It's an issue they
1 nave thrust upon Their readers upon their own
motion and in which they, not the Clarion. are
/ chiefly interested. The public las doubtless
i formed its opinion long since upon this ques-
tiOn. but it will have the benefit OF PROOF Al
these individuals, who have SO hotly rushed III
to print, wish this controversy prolonged.
While it is quite necessary that these news
papers, editors and publishers, should attempt
some explan alton or their wide variance from
their own former opinions upon this question
! from the opinions OF the vast majority OF the
I Democrats and people OF this parish, the para
graphs quoted herein from them Will not sps
/ aecepted by the people as satisfactory ex
planation. Here where these parties are
known these utterances will pass for nothing
more than silly bravado
1 The undersigned are responsible Tor Wnat ap
pears in the St. Landry Clarion.
GEORGE @. EL1is,
J. j. THOMPSON,
II. S. FONTEN0T,
E. Z. LEWIS,
a. H. GENERES.
Board of Directors Of the st. Landry Print1ne
and Publishing Company Limited.
We do not understand the simple re.
iteration OF 9. the truth of the edlt0rIa
comment contained therein as a re
neWal of the offensive lnslnuation WllIcI
the card assumes was never made anf
never had any existence hence, we ar
relieved Of the painful necessity wilicl
would otherwise exist of characterlzins
that insinuation as we did before.
II. The first charge is general one M
specifically repeated in the 4fh. M
/ enter D general denial and pass on g
j the I'd.
2. The writer OF the card could no
have been serious when be charged. o.
assumed that the attitude OF :" the Tor
ner owner and editor OF the Demo
crat, who leased the concern oven Y yea
8 x.s,er ~