The weekly Thibodaux sentinel. [volume] (Thibodaux, La.) 1898-1905, 1902-10-04

unSracious one. Why, in ITS second
article, in answer to our frat article,
the Comet does not deny its attack
on the jury but again takes occasion
to "brlng more forcibly before the
police jury and the rublic the unde-
nia0le discrimination that Was prac
tised against us GO-against one
Democrat BY other Democrats. DIS
cnm,nation practised by whom Z By
the police jury; il was the body which
elected the proprietor of the SENTINEL
parish printer, and that is the dis
crimination cOmplaiced of. The fact
that the police jury caucused (confer-
red, we are assured by q member),
and the proprietor of the Comet not
consulted about it was also bitterly
complained Of and condemned; per
haps that also was not attacking the
police jury2 1t may be that, under
some new system Of Interpretation,
unknown to US, to condemn in un.
mistakable terms the Official acts of
an organized body is not to attack
that body. but We think otherwise.
And again what about tins, appear
ing in that same second article Of the
Comet:
"Tbe Sentinel is right when it o., Q
that the members of the Jury are "in
teiligent men and honest public ser.
wants." They are well.iuteuding gen.
tlenen, who are actusted by higher
motives than scheming and plotting,
and il let alone will do their duty
with fairness toward slL"
'deis1".S's 'deissa1S"Ss ."s Ho::es WI: .rrs. ~. s1.s
rs like "damning with faint praise.
1t is . poor sort Of q compliment to
pay q man to say OF him he 10 ga
well.intending man, and il left alone
will do his duty with fairness towards
ALL" Translated into palmer Ian.
guage it is equivalent to saying, "oh,
yes; he is q good man, but 70 weak,
" easily influenced, that he Can be
easily swerved from his duty"
Now, the Comet may not have
meant to say this Of the police jury,
but we submit that this Is the fair
iutendment of its language.
The Comet attempts 10 answer the
SENriNEL's structures upon its dis.
torted code of ethics in this fashion:
-"Now II we did modify our ethics
to suit your suggestion we could not
long continue in this glowing path,
because the past record Of the Sentin.
ell, to which you refer with 30 much
pomp and pride, would tend to teach
US that It is not necessary 10 observe
the law where there is no peualty at.
tached. We are led TO make this as
sertiOn from the fact that the former
proprietor of the seti,neI held q very
lucrative Office from 1896 to 1900.
During all Of that time-up to the
time e years sgo) that he transferred
the paper to the present "proprietOr'
he was also elected parish printer,
which, meant en- income of about $3.50
to $500 PER year more. We have
been told that the law fGrbi,ls . man
to hold two elective Offices"
In the first place, the former pro
prieto: of the SENTINEL referred to
abOve did not assume full control of
the paper until March or April 1898;
and in the secoud place, il he was
elected parish printer. that Office, II
Office it be, was such an Office that
he could hold at the same time with
hls lucrative Office without violating
any law. Thus the specious defense
of the Comet falls.
The Comet denies bringing the die.
trict judge into the controversy. Lei
Us see. The Conset said:
"In the 6rst place, We are morally
certain that the author o. the article
IN the Sentinel was not the "prOprie.
tor" of the Sentinel, but a lawyer, q
lawyer whom any one who has watch
ed the mxnOeuvres Of the Sentinel fOI
the past ten years can readiIJ name
and wound up with an aIlusIOn to the
person it assumed to have been the
author Of the SENTINEL's article II
zone holding fat Office"
II the Comet did not mean and
intend, by its description and aliu
sion, to refer to the individual who is
district Judge, then We freely confess
that we were mistaken in our inter
pretation of its language; but is mol
the Comet quibbliug2 However, lei
it pass.
The Comet continues talking abou
what the SENTINEL is getting and nat
gotten out of ,ne iarsh prlui'og; bn