The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-02-13
THE TEssLER DEFICIT.

A Word In Reply 70 ], ]. Clark, Esq Correcting
his Errors OF statement In the RtpOSitory--he
Wants the Suit to 80 on.
In the Repository Of last week j, D.
Clark, ESQ, of the law firm OF W. w. q
JJ Clark, had an article over the sigma
ture of "a Taxpayer" in which are errors
of statement that require correction. Mr.
Clark claims that the suit against the
bondsmen should go on that the money
can easily he made-that Zone man is
worth $50 900; another 500 600 to S3O,'
1000; three members of firm are worth
$3.50 600; and Wholesale dealer is worth
$4,000; and the entire bond represents
"four times more than the deficit" In
this way, Mr. Clark argues, the money
can and should be made for the county
Mr.. Clark seems very familiar with the
financial condition of his fellow citizens,
and may have made tia business. We
wouder if the "whoesale dealer" is a
client of his, and hence Mr.. Clark's su'
perior knowledge.
We take the liberty Of giving Mr. Clark
credit for his article, for in a matter Of
such public concern, fair and square and
open dealing should be the rule. Itshall
be as far as the Stark County DEMOCRAT
can make it so. No good citizen need
hesitate to express his views, but the
public have right to know the indivld'
ual, that they may judge Of and weigh
his motives, taxpaying, &c. No one
should play "snake in the grass" in a
matter of this kind, for no one should be
governed by envy, malice, or personal
aggrandizement.
As to the financial estimates of Mr.
Clark, we hope they are rather below
than, above the truth. But this is not
the question. The real point is:-What
can be realized at forced sale after judg-
mentP Under the present statues of the
law debtors have a right to prefer credl'
tors, and as these bondsmen have credi'
tors of their own they will be very likely
to secure them before the county shall
get a lien on and seize their property.
This little circumstance is worthy Of con-
sideration by every taxpayer in the
county. In fact this is plain business
matter, and should be considered from a
business standpoint.
"What can we reason but what we
know ?" says an author. Other counties
have had experiences Of this kind.
Wayne county now has two such cases
on hand; and so far, after years Of costly
litigation, not a dollar has been made'
and not one likely to be made. Holmes
county. some years ago, had her Shrock
case, and also tried the law and got
nothing. Coshocton and Butler counties
have had their experiences with the
same empty result. More might be emu
merated, but these are enough to induce
good citizens to consider.
One important point in all this matter
Mr.. Clark fails to meet. As We have
stated, the present bondsmen are on for
Fessler's second term only; and there is
no doubt as to the fact, that the greater
bulk of the deficit sued for, was incurred
during the first term. Mr.. Clark must
know this, and yet, knowing this, would
seek to secure the whole deficit from the
second term bondsmen. To every fair
minded man this fact, that much of the
deficit belongs to the first term, is a
strong argument in favor Of settlement
By a fair settlement, Stark county
would receive something handsome
and be a noble exception to the
general rule.
This whole question is not party mat
ter and he who seeks, vulture like, to
torture it into party politics, is destitute
of, or surrenders those generous senti
ments of humanity, that should infu-
ence us in matters Of this kind.