The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1899-01-21
Correspondence.
Editor COURIER -

sue Oh tilit pdpeIt,or the many WI
of the questions rge of success. 1
him, in response to Ee>rS"at hs. !
and begs me to Eot ask any rtiore
until he finishes his answers,
which he promises to do this
week. While cheerfuIly accedina
to his reasonable request, | must
without further delay entera mild
protest against his unWarranted
illusions to myself in reference
to the fee allowed the sheriff fol
feeding prisoners. and dlsclalm
anv intention to do him the slight
est injustice when | said that he
had waited two weeks before
making his reply to my questions
of Dec. II. 'Ehe unquestionable
facts are that my queries were pub
Iished on Dec. II and his undated
answer appeared Dee. 3l-two
weeks afterwards. But | unre-
servedly accept his statement as
to the reason why his answer did
not appear one week before
which is that the paper was too
crowded-and as unreservedly
withdraw any differences that
may have based upon the very
natural belief, born of my knowl-
edge of the facts above referred
to, that he had purposely withheld
his reply.
What | desire to protest against
right now is that. by a system Of
mole or less plausible ratiocina-
ton, "Anti-Grumbler' deals me
several blows ''helow the belt in
his discussion of the fee for feed
ing prisoners. Ichcrish | the hope,
however, that he did not 90 this
Intentionally and with premedita-
ton, for he assures me, almost in
the same breath. that he believes
in fair play and never strikes be-
low the belt. Addressing me, he
says:
"You convey the idea that the
police jury had raised the amount
10c., whereas as a matter Of fact
and of law, such is not the case.
By Act No 203 of the General
Assembly of 1898. section ), it is
provided that the sheriff shall re-
ceive for keeping and maintain
ing the prisoners in Jail from 40
to SOC. per diem for each prisoner,
to be fixed by the police jury.
From this it can be readily OBJ
served that the police jury could
not allow the sheriff less than
40c. nor more than 50c. They
have, instead of raising the price
1Oc., as Inquirer states, only in
creased the amount SC.
Farther on, he asks: Wv by did
he not, before charging the police
jury with having raised the
salary Zoe. per day for
each prisoner, ascertain the fact
that they only increased the
amount sc % He also qualities
my statement that the fee had
been raised from 35c. to 45c. as
"reckless,'' casts doubt, at least
and implication, upon
my willingness to deal fairly with
the officials of this parish in my
criticisms of their conduct, and
suggests that "Inquirer' ''had
better be conservative in MAX
ing charges, else ''Anti-Grum-
bler' will "call him down every
time.'
Now, the facts are that the
sheriff's two immediate predeces-
sors were allowed Soc. for feeding
prisoners, and that he himself. up
to Oct. 4, 1898, was allowed the
same fee. On that day, as will
be seen by reference to the Off
cial proceedings Of the police
jury, this fee was raised to 45c.
The head and front of my offend
ing was to charge that the fee had
been raised from 35 to 45c., and
thereby to convey the idea, as
"Anti-Grumbler" puts it, 'that
the police jury had raised the
amount 10c.' Five cents of this
amount the new law, it now ap-
pears, required them to pay, and
five cents was free gift-but the
raise is costing the taxpayers 1Oc.,
all the same. | think that my
charge and the idea it conveyed
were both absolutely correct. [
therefore submit to "Anti-Grum-
bler," in all candor and in all
kindness, that the illusions to me
above referred to are undeserved
and unwarranted. But whatever
view he may, i'll his calmer mo-
ments, take of the matter, [ would
respectfully suggest that in fur
ther discussions we both carefully
eschew any personalities that
might be in the least offensive and
address ourselves solely to the
consideration of the public mat
ters under review. Let the dis
cussion of these weighty matters
be untrammeled and unclouded,
as far as possible, by personall-
ties and other triviaIities, and let
the man with the best cause win.
INQUIRER.