The Albany register. [volume] (Albany, Or.) 1868-18??, 1871-04-29
rortlsnd city Prlntlng.

The Saicm Mercury, litigant organ
for Marion, aud supposed to be the
official mouthpiece Of Governor Gro
yer, comments as follows upon the
course of the Portland Herald in claim
ing under the litigant law, all the adver-
tising Of the city Of Portland:
We are sorry to zee disposition man
ifested by the Herald, calculated to make
a good aud necessary law cdious in the
eyes of the people. As we understand
il, the Herald claims that under the liti-
CANT Law tits entitled to allthe advertising
for the city of Portland of whatsoever kind.
This claim is manifestly erroneous and
ridiculous. The language Of the h,igant
Act is explicit on what advertising 1t
contemplatcs; an nowhere in it can we
discover that that class OF advertising OF
which any city in this State has exclusive
Jurisdiction, is included in its provisions.
The litigant Act manifestly enough has
no relation or reference to printing au-
thorized alone by ordinance of auy city
The advertising. if any, provided for in
the charter OF the city of Portland, being
aauthorized and required" by a 'slau of
this State, would belong to the Herald
as the litigant organ for Multnomah
county. The law says: "And thereafter
all notices, summonses, and advertise
ments of whatever nature, authorized or
required TO be Published By any laao Of
tbs .Stafe," etc. The law has no refer
ence whatever to the ordinary business
of city provided for by ordinance, else
it had been necessary to provide for the
recognition by the city authorities of the
litigant organ Of the county, as the liti>
gant. organ of the city as well. The
Herald is not known to fhe city of Port
land as litigant paper, for that city has
not provided by ordinance for the ap-
pointment of city litigant organ
Another view of the case. Honors and
public eInoluments generally imply res
possibility of some sort. Suppose that
through the negligence or Incompetence
of the Herald it fails to do and perform
certain advertising as any given ordinance
shall direct, and that in consequence any
person is damaged. Where will such
person have his recourse On the secur-
tiles of the litigant organ? Surely not
for they would plead in bar of Judgment
that they were responsible aud liable
alone as surcties for the Herald proprie-
tors for the county of Multnomah and
NOT the city of Portland. The records
ofthe city Of Portland show no account
or trace of any litigant paper ever having
been appointed for that city, or Other
than that provided for by ordinance OF
resolution of the Common Council, and
that was the Oregonidn.
In conclusion we have this to say: II
the HeraII is entitled to the city adver.
;ising of the city of Portland, it is more
/ than its proprietors expected or calculat-
ed upon, and that not single membel
of either House of the Legislature thai
enacted the litigant law intended that i
should apply to the printing provided fo
by the Common Council of any city
And if, by any s.twist" in thessmysteries'
of the law, We could hold the pIintin:
for the city of Salem, we would not tax
it. We cannot afford to seem hoggisl
for so small reeompense. 1t is bon
we do not covet at the price Of our con
science and ~hat Is palpably fair an
right.