St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1914-01-17
ADVERTISEMENT
The Mayor i'm a Pitiable
Attitude.
Opelousas, Jan. IA, 1914.

Attitude.
Opelousas, Jan. IA, 1914.
MI. Editor:
What purports to be an
answer to the charges which
I made in your paper of the Sd
instant against Mayor Loeb and
which is signed by him but evil
IDENTIFY written by somebody else,
appears in your last issue. 1t is
certainly a very queer, a very
singular answer, inasmuch as
it does not refer to or attempt to
deny a SINGLE ONE of the
damning charges I clearly and
specifically made against him.
He lodges every one of them;
but he takes up nearly one and
a half columns Of your pa
per in an attempt to show that
my criticism of his official record
was prompted solely by my re-
sentiment toward him (growing
out Of a matter which he should
blush to even mention)-appar-
emily thinking. poor fellow. that
Lie he could establish that silly
claim all of his hideous public
record would thereby be wiped
outi
But it is not Mr.. Sandoz, the
private citizen, who stands ar
raigned at the bar of public opin-
ion. He is not on trial. It is
Mayor Loeb, the public official.
And ! do not propose to allow
him to dodge the scathing in
dictment I have Ieveled at him
and follow him in the discussion
of private matters; although I
am sorely tempted to expose
seriatim the unfair and untruth-
full statements, the offensive
personalities and contemptible
insinuations with which this So
called answer bristles. One,
however, / cannot pass over in
silence, and that is the transpar-
emily false and insincere state
ments intended to make people
believe that I used a NOM DE
PLUME in order to conceal my
identity, when everybody in the
community knew as soon as they
set eyes on it that it was I who
had written it-knew it because
of my long record Of protest
against misgovernment and mis-
rule. AS a matter Of fact, my
name was signed on the last
page, as an evidence of good
faith, and all Loeb's silly twad-
die about uncloaking' the au-
thor is therefore the veriest rot.
But whether Mr.. Sandoz had a
just claim against the city for
land, for an equal amount of
which it had just paid other citi-
zens over $500. is not the ques-
ton. The question is, Is Loeb,
the public official, guilty Of the
charges I made against him?
Did he not. as a candidate for
Alderman, in 1910, declaim
against the excessive cost of the
city government and the largely
inflated salaries? Did he not, as
Alderman, in May, 1910, vote to
fix the Mayors salary at $500
and then, a few days after, have
the minutes corrected to show
that $500 was the figure he had
voted for? Did he not then vote
to fix the salary Of the Street
Commissioner at $500? Did he
mot, in 1912, when a candidate
for Mayor, again declare his
platform to be reirenchment in
our excessively costly system and
that the Mayors salary should
not exceed $500 nor the Street
Commissioners $500? Yes,
emphatically yes. And as soon
as he took his seat as Mayor, in
1912, and his salary was raised to
$3.50 and the Street Commits
sioner's to 5000, did he again
raise his voice in protest, did he
again burden the minutes with
explanations, yetoes', and
oily asseverations that he was
representing the people and
not candidates?
All, no. The reform idol had
feet Of clay, and at the sight OF