Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1891-08-14
The Courier Unscathed.

We have always taken it for grant,
ed that an ex-county superintendent
of schools was all expert at figuring,
especially in subtraction. But it
would seem we have been laboring
under a delusion. We have a case
before us. Two weeks ago the
COURIER said it had cost the county
s247 40 more under the present ad-
minlstration than under ring rule.
While ''~nosing" around among the
county officers the fore part Of last
week, Mr.. Ring was told that his
statement in regard to county ex-
pences was wrong, and that it was
impossible to take two from three
and leave two. At first Mr.. Ring
denied that he had done that kind
of figuring, but when Register Of
Deeds Ronell produced the figures
published in the COURIER the week
previous, Brother Ring 'wilted" and
admitted he was wrong. The ar
ticle in the COURIER two weeks ago,
relative to county expenses, occu-
pied nearly two columns. When
Mr.. Ring published That article he
imagined he had "~paralyzed" some
body, but in correcting his blunder
in last weeks COURIER, he barely
alludes to his figuring" and this is
what he says:
In the table published in last
weeks issue the difference between
the expenses Of last year and this
should have read s147. 40, instead Of
$247. 40.
IfMr. Ring will look the audi
tors books over carefully he will
find that it has cost the county con-
siderably less under the presen: adj
ministration than under ring rule.
But. Brother Ring, be very careful
in s%ubtracting and don't humilatc
the editorial fraternity by saying
that 1.-TWO from three leaves two."-
Leader.
So far rs the above article refers
to Mr.. Ring individually and to us as
county officer we know nothing
about it. A. L. RoNELL.
The error above referred TO was
not williully made but was made in
transferring the figures from our
brief to the main article. Our cor
rection Of the mistake before Bro.
Knapp discovered it, as shown by
his not saying any thing about it in
last weeks issue, at least shows our
aim to treat the subject fairly and
neither turn it into fun nor slush.
The substance of the conversation
between Mr.. Ronell and Bro. Knapp
is simply that the latter asked him
if the officers had investigated
whether the figures were correct, to
which reply was made that that had
not been done but that Mr.. Roncll
had discovered the above mention.
ed mistake aud also that ue had
mentiaEed the fact to the officers
before they did to us and that he
supposed it was not intentional.
That is in substance the foundation
to Bro napp's plain falsehood. The
reader will please to notice that the
Leader does not attempt to show
figures to prove that this is q reform
administration, but tries to get out
Of it by making capital out Of an
error such AZ appears in his own pa
per every week, for instance when
he says that Prof. Rich is conductor
Of the institute, in this same issue,
when said professor has mol even
been in town. When you go t.
your father IN Iowa, this week, Bro
Knapp, We hope he will teach yor
that . real low, mean lie is no les
4 lie than q silly one, such Is you
Richland reporter tells.
Some people are constantly roub
IN. .skl Ill