The weekly Thibodaux sentinel. [volume] (Thibodaux, La.) 1898-1905, 1902-09-27
1.-The Parish Printing" Once
More.

| ~S"eSN VA IuC utIdCk uluUc UN
the Comet upon the Police Jury be
cause of its action in clecting tn,
proprietor Of the SENTINEL parish
printer. 1t endcavored to show, and
believes it did show, that the Police
Jury had acted strictly within ant
according to the law in the matter
and TO give force 10 its argumen,
quoted the law governing that body
The Comet admits the law bu,
says that inasmuch as 1t IS not q
criminal statute it is not to be con
strued strictly, and therefore, the
police jury may observe it or not
|lust es jt sees proper. The law ia
|ferenF1orS.s Asd while IL may. be
true that there is no penalty provided
Tor Its violation, there is y moral oh
legation to observe it and We cannot
subscribe to the Comets code of
ethics by which it seeks to justify its
non observance.
Ii the "editor and proprietor" OF
the Comet would "brush up against
legal lights" little more, he might
modify his ethics to the extent of
recognizing the duty of observing the
law, even where there is no penalty
provided 70" its violation.
After making its new point on the
law, the Comet devotes two columns
OF Its space to criticizlng the SENrIN
Ell, its proprietor, the district Judge,
and Other people unnamed and un.
described, and indulges in innucndoes
and little filings of attempted sarcasm.
Now, the issue Was between the
SENTINEL and the Comet, and why it
should bring the district Judge in the
controversy, in violation of all rules
OF professional ethics, Is inexpllcable
except on the theory that the Comet
desired to vent its spleen upon that
distinguished individual for some
imaginary wrong. The Comet seeks
to justify its attack upon him on the
ground that it is "morally certain"
that he is the author OF the article in
the SENTINEL. We might he "moral.
ly certain" that the article IN the
Comet was prepared by another than
its editor and proprietor, and still We
would have no right to charge any
one with its authorship, much less to
attack any one, when the Comet has
made it its own and assumed all res
possibility for it by publishing it
editorislIy, just as the article in the
SEM true rule Of journalistic ethics.
The article of the SENTINEL was its
own utterance for which it is respOn.
sible; under the rules of correct
journalism criticism of it should have
been limited to it. There are some
people however who either have never
learned these rules, or else think il
''smart" to violate them by dragging
into the controversy irrelevant issues.
The Comet seems particularly hurt
by this passage in the SENTINEL S
article which followed the statement
Of the Comets threat against the
Democratic party:
ave regret that the Comet has
made this statement, because we had
been pleased all these years to look
upon its democracy as genuine and
disinterestet. AMI not only purse
deep"
The Conset seems, judging from its
comments, to have misapprehen1cd
the clear import Of this passage: il
does not say and it does not mean
that for any one "to seek u share oil
the official patronage it is Democracy
that is only purse deer;" but it does
mean that, il any Democrat does quit
the Democratic party, or turn against
il, because he does not receive public
patronage at the hands Of a Demo
cratic body, it proves his Democracy
to be OrIy purse deep. That is all
there is to il.
The Comet had TO have, in this con
nectiOn, its little fling mt the Demo.
cracy Of the gentleman il has seen iii
81. L., 7,