The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1872-05-31
TIL "LIr1aANT sw1NDLE.n

The last issue of tho Register has
an article urging Republicans to vote
for men for the Legislature who will
sec that no more 'litigant' swindles
may be perpetrated, causing you to
pay $2l for notices that, before its en-
actment, the same paper charged but
81 so for"
W. now propose to show, by the
advertising rates" published by the
Register, that the same advertisement
in that organ would cost the poor
litigant more than it does in this
paper, under tho existing law. Take
M advertisement of four squares -
Under the litigant law, Twelve lines
to the square), this would be forty
eight lines; but under tho Registers
published standard Of ten lines to the
square, a four square advertisement
under the litigant law, would be 20
the Register nearly .fce squares-just
four squares aud eight.tenths-so
nearly, indeed, that it would, by any
publisher, be counted five squares
Now for the figures: a four square
advertisement, under the litigant Law,
for first insertion, comes to $40. At
81 per square for each subsequent in
sertion, it would amount to Sl2 more,
making a total of So for the four
weeks. Now, by the Registers own
rates, published OIL its first page, the
first insertion OF the same advertise
ment would amount to $40. The
three subsequent insertions, at 81 per
square. would amount to sl5 dollars,
making a total of $751; which the
Register would charge for the same
advertisement that costs the poor
swindled litigant, by this atrocious
act OF n Democratic Legislature, the
sum OF S22! Thus we have plainly
shown that the "litigant swindle"
saves to the advertiser, on every four
square advertisement, three dollars !
We have heard this act assailed by
those who didn't know the difference
between a power press and n thresh-
ing machine; but We did not expect
a paper. claiming responsibility,
to publish such trash rs that above
quoted from our contemporary, when
its standing advertising rates" gave
the lie to its assertion, and by which
any one, able to multiply two by two,
can see the truth of our argument
The Registers assertion that litigan,s
now have to pay s24 for notices hat
before the enactment OF that bill cost
in the same paper 81 so is so barren
of truth as to scarcely need n refuta.
ton. We have only published one
legal notice since the law was enacted
which lost S2I, whereas before we
operated under the litigant law there
was hardly ever a notice published
which did not exceed that amount
This, the Register. as well as every
lawyer in the county. knows. The
litigant law cut down our rates oil
charges for that sort of advertising nj
least %one.fourth, besides requiring US
to execute bonds in $1,000 for the
faithful performance of the work and
exacting of us the voluntary contribu.
ton of four copies of the paper every
week TO the several courts of record
in the State. There is not Il paper in
Oregon to-day, and we stand ready to
prove the proposition by plain fig
ures, whose advertising rates, if Il
haze anu. are not ADORE those allowed
by the Litigant bill. The leading
organ of the Radical party in this
State (Oregonian) is to-day doing the
city printing of Portland at a price
one-third higher than that bid by the
Herald, a paper with equally as wide
a circulation. This is because a Rad.
ical council would not give the work
to a Democratic paper, after it had
advertised for and received bids from
both, but gave it to the Oregonian, a,
q price one-third greater than that bid
by the Herald. Out upon such de.
ception and barefaced talsity. "Soui
grapes" is what is the matter with oul
Radical neighbor. That law is ar
actual protection, and as such should
receive the warm supportan endorse
ment of the voters of the State.