The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1918-03-01

PRESIDENT OF THE POLICE JURY ALSO KNOWS THAT THE
ITEM IS YELLOW.

Inc policy of the New Orleans Item
IN the handling of the jefferson Davis
parish police jury custer suit proceed.
Ings has gained that newspaper some
hotorletY, bat it is a class of notoriety
Hot usually coveted by self respecting
newspapers. What the Item can hope
10 gain by painting the fair name of
Jefferson Davis parish in yellow is diff.
cult for comprehension, but it is reason.
able to presume that there is a motive
behind it.
In letter addressed to the Jennings
Times'Record, Feb. rs, District Attor.
ney j. Sheldon Toomer Says;
ION my return from Oberlin, La.
where have been conducting a term
or the Criminal court, my attention has
been called to an article in the New
Orleans Item" newspaper, of the 10th
instant, with regard to the police jury
custer suit recently on trial in JEFF
Davis parish, Whereini it was said that
was conspicuous by my absence"
This statement virtually charges me
with derellctiOn of duty and may do me
injury unless the reasons of my alb.
Sence from this trial are made known.
The work OF the five parishes of this
district fully occupies the entire time
Of the assistant district attorney and
myself. During the whole time that |
this custer suit was on trial, was en-. !
gagged in conducting terms of the Grim.
nal court in CalcaSieu and Allen par.
shes and my attendance in JEFF Davis
parish was therefore impossible"
Following the publication in The Item
If last Saturday Of what purported to
'e d lengthy interview with Police
Iuryman Arthur 7. Jones on the sub,
eCt of the custer proceedings. Mr..
ZONES sent the following telegram to
he Item;
Welsh, La, Feb. %, 1918.
editor New Orleans Item,
New orleans, La.
Gentlemen:
In your issue of this date lam quoted
t some length giving what purports
0 be an interview with one OF your
taft correspondents in connection with
ulster proceedings which has just
osed in the district court.
! desire to brand the alleged inter
lew as false. Z
/ have never extended an interview
pom this matter to any one.
You will favor me by retracting your q
atement in connection with the mat
IT and publish this statement in ad-
ton, giving this the same promin-
ice accorded the alleged interview.
A. 7. JONES.
When asked about the purported III b
rvieW in the Item, Mr.. Jones said S
at although he had seen the Items Il
aff correspondent in the court room g
ring the trial, he had never spoken to =
e man, in fact, had never met him. nc
3 denounced the Item, its represen- 5
tive and its methods in no. uncertain e1
pms-in terms which We believe are "
e strongest that MIR. Jones permits n,
nself to use even on the greatest :,
oyocation. We would not quote him u
; fear OF being spoken of in similar m
ms. B
n its issue Of the 26th uitimo, the h.
m correspondent reiteratedhis state. ~
mt that Mr.. jones gave the alleged
erview, that he gave it during the w
eSS Immediately after the testimony
sed; and that Mr.. Jones called him
lie to give the inter view. In Lep,y III
that statement MIR. Jones sent the on
owing letter to the Item: I'M
Welsh, La, Feb. rs, 1918. or
v Orleans Item, New Orleans, La. . 6
entlemen: r
our staff correspondence Under "A