Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1842-10-11
ATJDlTOR,s OFFICE.

Political Examiner contain many state
menis calculated 10 deceive those unac'
qusinied with the duties of the Auditors
office. Pretended extracts are given
from the Auditors reports for lS4l, and !
1912, which ihe Examiner says ere given |
sword for word and figure for igure."-
Here is the extract as given in the Exam
iner:
"Audiior's fees, ls41 S7lO,33.7 |
p. L. Wilson. dep. lS4l 530,47S
Auditors fees, 1912 645,S4.3 |
P. l.. Wilson, dep. 1912 22l,37.S"
We give below the words Of the reports,
by which the difference and the m'srepre-
sentation will be exposed.
From Auditors report for is4l.
"Iezekiah Lindsey, county
Auditor, for services as such $40 l,33 I"
"P. l.. Wilson, deputy Aud
tor, for services 53O,47S"
From Auditors report for 1912,
'.James J. Saith, County An-
| dltOT SO4J,o4
P. L. Wilson, deputy county
Auditor 22l 1878"
BY emitting The name of the Auditor
who received the fees reported in lS4l,
the Examiner meant to convey the idea
TO its readers that Mr.. Smith received
them. But Mr.. Smith received not one
cent Of them; and he received but $685.
S43. of tho 50, ,l08 .03.l, for which the
Examiner attempts 10 make him respont
sible.
The Examiner says, "Smilh has ono
year behind yet, and as he is a candidate
we presume lie does not wish to show his
bill until siler tho election, then look
out for u rouscr."
1t is untrue that Mr.. Smith has ore
year behind yet. lie has been in the
office but FIVE or ak weeks over year
and half--his fees for one year are re.
orled-and h: therefore has only few
days over seven months fees behind,
which will be duly reported next June,
the usual time of showing his bill, and
which will be considerably lass than last
year, on account Of there being less Grim.
inal cases before the courts this year
than the last. Aud here we may state
that The large number of criminal cases
last year were tho principal cause of the
fees Of the Auditor amounting TO more
than in Highland or Clermont, rs he has
10 write an order on tho Treasurer for ev-
cry witness, Juror, &c. in such cases ,and
is aIloWed by law a certain smOuntfor eV.
cry order he issues, and for recording
the samo. We few days since stated
that the duties Of the Office may be
much increased without any increase OF
population, and straightway the Examin-
er ceases to parade the population, and re-
SORTS TO q comparison Of the number of
acres Of land in this and in Highland |
county, and Of the amount of taxes in
the two counties. The number of acres
of land or tho amount of taxes arc NO
better criterion by which TO Judge Of the
amount Of labor performed by the Audit
or, or by which to regulate his fees. The |
recording ofa farm of 5000 acres costs
no more than that Of q farm Of FIVE huns
dred, Hence it will be seen that the fees
depend more upon the number of farms
and lots than the number Of acres -
The samo rule holds with regard TO the
amount Of taxes, It's the division into |
small parcels which increases the dulles
Of The Auditor. The comparison Of the
Examiner, r,therefore,proves nothing unless
the latmsof Highland are Of equal size g.
value with those Of this county, which is
not the fact, for this comfy is divided
into much smaller firms, generally than
Highland.
The reader must conclude, with us,
that tho uuther Il lie articles in the Elk.
aminer is either very ignorant Of the du.
iies county Auditor,or wilCully misrep-
resenis them to influence the votes of
such as are uninformed on the subject.