The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1881-05-10

The Economist says that the authority
for its statement as TO the cost Of printing and
binding 1900 copies OF Thompson's Digest was
clause in an act approved January 9, 1840, appro-
priating g. III AS for the same. The FLoRrDIAN
does not deny the appropriation; but the trouble
with our contemporary is that he frequently says
things as an editor which he would not say as
Lalcyer In the latter capacity he would probably
look beyond his nose and not risk the interest OF
his client on a casual search for authority"
Pettifoggers only are given to this sort of
practice AS an editor, however, we are sorry
10 say, he belongs TO the pcttfogging c'ass. He
does not look beyond his nose. Had he acted in
this instance as a prudent lawyer and given him
self TO searching he would have found on page
3 of the Comptroller's report Of November I,
1913, another and later authority which gives
the cost to tile State of Thompson's Digest as
$2,61745
Furthermore, as Il lawyer, instead of relying
on a provision in one law Chapter 1928, APP
proved March a. 1872 intended to carry out a
provision in another lac (Chapter 324O, approved
March 3, 1881 he would have examined the
provisions of the other and older lao 10 under
stand what the provision in the later act was
meant TO cover This would have shown him
as a larger that the appropriation made in Chap
ter 1923 was to cover the g printing and binding"
of the new Digest directed TO be done by Chap
Ter 3240, the third section of which chapter reads
as follows:
SEC. g. That the contact with the printer or
publisher for TIC printing and binding of said
Digest shall he made by the Governor and Comp
troer, and they shall secure the publication on
| ,oAt h.
at least three thousand and not more than five
thousand copies shall be printed, and fifteen
| hundred copies shall be bound in good law sheep
binding, and the others IN paper.
/ AS petliiosging editor, the EcOnomist ignored
this authority as TO The intent and purposes
Of the appropriation made in Chapter 1928.
! Still further Had the editor OF the Economist
been as anxious 10 deal fairly with the public
and its readers as he was to misead, he would
have told them that Thempsons Digest was a
mere pamphlet compared with what the new
Digest will be- that the coat of a comparatively
small volume 1886 pages to the State in 1S47
was $1.75 copy while the new Digest is esti-
mated by the compiler TO be more than twice as
large Q4O0 pages as the old one, and that moi
|. f----~ '-'~"J ~~P.~~
volume are directed to be printed, and that the
estIuldtc hduc loT Tie Cost Oh 0,UVO copies, Inc
highest number authorized to be printed, is tes'
in proportion than was paid in 1S47 for 1900
copies when printing was much cheaper than il
is now. We repeat: an honest well-informed
editor would have told his readers these things
while one of the "petifogging class would
have sought TO mislead them by Withholding the
true facts as the Economist does
Once more. An editor who understands and
appreciates the decencies and courtesles of Jour
nalsm, in quoting from contemporary, would
If the quotation is abusive, give the occasion for
the ill-temper. The FLoRIDIAN had incontesti-
bly, convicted the Key Of The Gulf of ignorance
in some Of its financial statements and that
paper instead of acknowledging its sin, with the
popularity OF weak minds, retorts abusively.-
This retort, so in keeping with the line of ar
guP1ent pursued by the Economist, is copied by
That paper with apparent gusto, but without a
word as 10 uhy convicted ignoramus seeks to
escape punishment. This is only characteristic
OF the Economist whose vagares would be the
less noticebe if its editor was trifie less malip-
nan The real perrerter is the one who tries
10 deceive the public by Withholding facts. Let
The Economist make the application.