The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1892-02-27
Sheriff Tontenot's Gard.

toned the operations of the District
Court. It formed no part Of our de-
sire to censure asy one. In our igno.
rance we belieVld the officers of the
Court had nothing to do with drawing
the Jury We mentioned simple facts
concerning it, perfectly conscious that
the sluggishness in its proceedings un-
der the circumstances could not have
been avoided by any Of them. Still
the fact remained thn5 it was "drag-
ging its slow length a ong." We con
fess that the Sheriff is very well in
formed aud potent gentleman, but it
never occurred to our feeble intellect
that he was in any wise responsible
for what the proper commissioners
failed to do. We did not SO charge,
nor can his superior mental power OF
Interpretation enable him, to make it
appear that we intended to convey
such an idea,
We said the term should have been II
Jury term, which is true and we do not
think the remark should offended Mr..
Fontenot He says he had nothing to
do with drawing the Jury. Thnt is
true, but We did not say he had, and
therefore when he charges us snbstan'
TALLY with saying otherwise, he shows
bis intimate acquaintance with truth,
by successfully ignoring it. We did
not deem it necessary to defend him
against an accusation that had not
been made, and was not Intended to be
made
He says bis profit for boarding the
prisoners lessons as the number of pris-
oners increases. We never said other
wise, and could wish that the $4,000
allowed him annually. might all be
profit to him We iu fact hope that,
By infasing bis high morality among
The masses be may soon so purify the
morals Of his though to be destitute con
s,ituents that the parish prison may be-
come thing of history only. He says
it Is insmGteTial to the tas payers
whether the Jail Is full or empty"
Just SO.
The thug is so fxed that, whether
he earnss,ths money or not, the tax
payer must pay him. This is nice
enough for him, but what about the
people? Now we don't blame him, for
it was so arranged before he went into
Office, and the moral reformers aud re-
trenchers have not changed 1t. In
other matters, changes have been
made, because they did not pan out SO
profitably to them. He says that
whenever the prison s full, be is the
sufferer, at least such is the idea he ex-
presses.
This Is So but why is it sof We
are Of opinion, benighted though it
may be that an officer should be re-
warded for sUhat he really earns and
not be made to suffrHtor il. Ii there
fore the Purists, high among whom Mr..
Fontenot stands, as thinker and as
an examplar, should change this
among other things they found wrong,
and SO arrange it, that if he had but
one prisoner he should be well paid for
keeping him. aud if fotty, he should oe
correspondingly paid IL were better for
the tax payers. In that event it would
be somewhat material to tue people
what they might be called on to pay.
But Mr.. Fontenot shows himself to be
far too sensitive, and without the
slightest intention on our part of irri.
tdGiuS ulAi Ho DCouMcs 10 4hAc dH q
buck rabbit. We certainly did not
mean to offend him, Of TO make any
charges whatever against him. He
charges. US with desire 10 iijaie him.
Here again be artfatly steps into error.
We have 90 such desi.r. E is true we
do not always tell all the truth we
know, for ne get tired Of repeating it.
For example we did repeat that he
charged the tax payers twenty times as
much for tax advertisements, as the
COURIER aud Democrat would have
charged
Finally NE desire that he may recog-
nize who the editor of this paper is, as
II stands continually at it's head. Our
editorial existence or identity Is not
multinomiBal.