The Banner-Democrat. [volume] (Lake Providence, East Carroll Parish, La.) 1892-current, 1892-12-31

AtSCHtif III VIC - otShieVSHo "
trict Court the following decision
of great interest TO country papers
was rendered. Here are the partic-
ulars Of this suit:
The ease of Ii. p. Breazeale VS..
G. l.. Tricliel, sheriff, was decided
here to-day by District Judge Jas.
Andrews in favor Of Mr.. Breazeale.
The case is of great importance TO
the newspapers of this State, be-
canse il decides what is the legal
rate for the advertisement of the de-
Iinqnent tax list.
The plaintiff, who is editor and
proprietor of the enterprise" adj
yertised the delinquent tax list last
year and made out his bill for the
same, charging 81 a square for the
iirst insertion and Sos square for
each subsequent Insertion. State
Auditor W. w. Heard refused to
permit the sheriff to pay the bill at
that rate, alleging that the price fixed
by law was 75c per square for the
first insertion and Csc per square
for each subsequent insertion.
Mr. Breazeaie. through his attor-
ueys, Messrs. Pierson and Porter,
sued ont writ of mandamas against
the sheriff to compel him to pay the
Diil at the rate claimed. The audi
tor was represented by Attorney
General Nj. j. Cunningham.
After lengthy argument by both
sides Judge Andrews took The case
under advisement and to-day decid-
ed it as above, holding that 81 per
square for the first and so cents for
each subsequent insertion is the rate
fixed by law for such advertise
men,s. The auditor will appeal,
and by agreement the case will be
decided by Circuit Court Judges
Moncure and Southerlin at Shreve-
port next month.
The Judgment of the court we con
slider just one, and sincerely hope
the Circuit Court vii, affirm it I'M
hesitatingly. CT course judicial ad
vertisments are not involved in the
Issue raised, but here the regular rec
ognized rates under the law of 81 .0(
per square for the first insertion and
/ scots for each and every subsequent
insertion, have been always paid fol
delinquent lists by owners or out
side purchasers, and when the State
became owner under the law.
i We have never known tie printer!
charge of the above rates question
ed, nor can we see any good reason
why the State should pay less foi
snch advertising than private indi
viduals. The first instance we know
of land felt seriously was in tn,
matter of the Constitutional amend
ments published by the country ane
city papers fourteen times previous
to the last April election. Uudel
the ruling of Auditor Heard W,
were paid off at 75c and CSC instead
of LOO, and SOC as heretofore, ant
/
in common with the other papers tina
published the amendments, our bill
was cut down $3.50, over one hal
the amount regularly charged. i
will be remembered that the first ap
preparation bill that passed thu
House for the payment of the paper
was predicated upon the 81 and so,
law, but when the bill went to th
Senate some one revived the obso
lete 75c and 25 cents law and tn
appropriation was cut down accord
ingly, and the bill passed; whicl
was sqch a gross injustice to th
newspapers that it ought to be recti
fed at the next meeting Of che legls
lature, seeing that the work wa
done under The rates that had pre-
vailed without being questioned il
the judicial, delinquent and Stat
department for quite number o
years.
Economy in the affairs of State i
highly commendable, but we canno
see either wisdom or justice in prac
fleeing it at the expense of the prin
tiers only as in the instance referee
}. to, therefore we hope the Appellate
Court will set the matter right.
The New Orleans Republican ha
very naturally contracted into dimin