The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1889-07-12
MA. sNyDEa,s REPLY.

only paper of low standing like the "Sen
tinel."
You are trying to create public sympathy
In suit pending between you and me,
about which you should have remained
silent until 1t is ended. You have good
counsel to ably represent your side OF the
case, but as you have already opened it, II
is but just and proper that represent the
other side
Prior to the Brooks high license law, as
1t generally called, the Clerk Of the Courts
advertised all applications for license in
any two papers in the county in which he
saw proper.
| Two years ago advertised in your pa
per; there were SO applications, for which
you charged me 54.4S or S cents each. 1
paid You and hold your receipt for same
signed over your own signature, which you
cannot deny by affidavit nor 'honest state
ment"
| Under the Brooks law the Court shall
designate In which two papers applications
shall be advertised.
Last year THE COLUMBIAN and "Sentinel"
were selected. THE CoLUMBIAN's bill was
paid satisfactory to both parties. You
wanted twice as much for the same work {.
| refused to pay It, You sued me paid
the costs, made you legal tender for same
amount l paid COLUMBIAN, and when the
Justice decided that that was all you was
entitled to- you grew angry and remarked
that you could have bought the Ju stice II
you felt so disposed, which you know is
untrue.
When the papers were to be selected for
the present year, you stopped lower than
| any other editor in the county would have
done to secure the patronage again, not for
the emoluments so much as for an oppor-
tunity to glut your vengeance on me. After
the Associate Judges agreed that you
should have the advertisement, you went
boosting about how you had stolen march
on me. The Republican" being selected
as the other paper without solicitation, and
when its bill was presented, based upon
advertising County Statement / cheerfully
paid it and am ready and willing to pay yon
the same, but you want seven dollars more
than twice as much but to avoid another
suit, offered you $1,000 more than paid
the Republican, making $4,000, not that
| loved or feared you, but to save trouble
and expense. You declined, sued me again;
l paid the costs and took an appeal. Last
week you ruled it for arbitration; got angry
and made drive at me in your paper,
which you are editing to abuse your enem-
les and reward your friends.
Two years ago when controlled the ad-
vertising you charged me eight cents apiece
for each application now you want ONE
DOLLAR TwRNTY-FoUR AND TWO SEVENTH OF A
CENT, difference Of one dollar sixteen and
two seventh of cent. How is this for
trimming" Mr.. Hoffman, Clerk of the
Courts of Montour county, which is in this
Judicial District, governed by the same
rules of Court aud presided over by the
same President Judge, paid twenty-five
cents this year, and you want within five
seventh of a cent one dollar more, making
difference of nearly seventy dollars on
seventy applications.
You say you made your charge according
to your rates. You have no regular rates;
never had any. You charge one person
one price and another, another. For In.
stance, executors and administrators no.
tices, in some estates you charge two dol
lars, in others, for the same kind and
amount of work, three dollars although
you said in your paper you charged only
two dollars, so as to take advantage of 9TH
er papers. Please explain why you did
this and 10 libel for divorce other papers
charge three dollars and you charged six
dollars. How is this for ''trimmings?"
You claim a large circulation; some you
charge one dollar for subscription, others
less, and those who do your political bid
ding, nothing. You are policy man; for
example, how much did you Subscribe TO-
ward Johnstown sufferers and how much
did you pay for that barrel of wh!skey you
placed in the Jail to run campaign?
You are again quibbling about fees.
When you was Prothonotary you accepted
all the fee-bill allowed. Since you went
out OF office the fee.bill of 1878, which you
| served under, has been declared unconsti-
tutional and the 1868 fee-bill the legal one,
which averages about 40 per cent. more
than former one. know of no county
| officer in the State, except myself, who
does not serve under the latter. Yet you
| abuse and try to misrepresent me. You
say charge one dollar aud seventy five
cent for revival Didn't you charge the
ssmeT Under the present legal fee.bll l
could charge two dollars and fifty cents, as
they are dong in Luzerne and Schuylkill
counties, and in Lycoming county the fee
Tor judgment is one dollar aud sixty-five
cents. charge one dollar and twenty five
cents for same. What reason have you to
howl at me? And in regerd to "bonnet
and trimmings" in the Sessions, l charge
three dollars and sixty cents and you five
dollars and eighty-five cents. How is this
for 'trimmings5" | also find in the Ses.
sions where you collected your fee from
the County in Commonwealth case which
was three dollars, and afterwsrd the costs
were paid in mistake TO you instead OF
the Commissioners which is forty-three dol
lars and forty-two cents, and instead o.
you paying them over you showed then
down your trouser-leg and walked out o.
ofncei when discovered you refused TO pa,
the amount to the county. Do you wan
all the particulars5 If so, call for them il
No. 2. What l say l can prove from th,
records which are the best evidence in the
world, and if any of your readers doubt
my word, let them call and will show
them cheerfully and gratuitously.
II the fee-bill is wrong why did you moi
correct it or adopt a new one last winter
when you was in the Legislature ? Yot
faithfully promised il the people woul,
send you, what you would do. Please tel
them wha. you did, besides copy ing tn,
Legislative record for your paper. draw
your . 90 salary and trimmings, ~ an,
stay at home half the time.
Tell your readers how you voted ON tn
fence law, and if you rode to aud fror
I Harrisburg weekly on a railroad pass