The Globe-republican., 1894-12-28

deceive Those who are not spracttcally
acqusInted with the printing irt, but We
are puzzled to know what ssobject" a
newspaper man can have for deceiving
his own readers. We freely confess our
inability to comprehend bis ''object''
He must have an object, or he would NOT
do it.
Now. concerning the law which our
prevaricatinS brother quotes. we took
the trouble to look it up, sud found the
opinion referred to was not concerning
the question of compensation for adver-
tising at all, but that only the question
of whether or not a tax deed was valid
on its face, where two or more tracts were
sold on one bid was passed upon.
In order to find out what the law
makers meant to allow for advertising
we must take the law as whole, and
see what their judgment was AS to the
value Of the space occupied BY legal ad-
vertising matter. In the same section
which provides for paying ten cents for
each town lot and twenty-five cents for
each tract of land other than town lots is
IA provision that one dollar shall be the
price for each square Of $50 ems the first
and fifty cents for each square of 225 ems
each subsequent insertion. In making
The price on tax list it was clearly the
purpose in giving different method of
computing, to fix the compensation in
such manner that the treasurer could
conveniently assess the cost upon the
real estate, and not to materially in
crease or diminish the price to be paid
for given amount of space in the ad-
vrrtising columns of a newspaper. TAX
irg any tax list that has been published.
count the town lots and count the tracts
of land and figure ten cents for each
town lot, whether in punches or blocks,
and figure 25c for each subdivision
in one body owned by one individ-
ual rs well as the single tract owned by
one person, it will be found to amount
to practically the same as figuring by
the square at the rate established in the
same section of the statute.
This method of distributing the ex-
pense of advertising makes the lot
speculator and the land shark pay as
much on each lot or each tract of land
other than town lots. rs the poor
man who has only one town lot or one
tract of land.
But according to Mr.. Martins alleged
statement the democratic treasurers who
have been running the Ford county
treasury the past five years have pre-
sented to the large holders or purchasers
AT tax sales. most of the amount assessed
against their town lots for listing and
advertising where they owned twenty
four lots in one bunch. The tax title
investors. the lot speculatOrs and large
land holders were no doubt grateful to
those treasurers for their discriminating
construction of the law, but the poor
man who only had one lot or one tract
Of land, diG not have so much cause for
thankfulness.
We find, on inquiry, that the state
ment concerning Mr.. Leidigh's count
was misleading. Mr.. Leidigh did not
claim that 1880 were all the lots offered
for sale by the advertisement. He was
instructed to confer with Otto Muller,
and see what he had to say about COM
pensatiOn for advertising. Mr.. Muller
is good clerk, but he has a habit of
doing things different from what the law
provides in cases where he thinks the
law can be improved upon, so he told
Leidigh to drop out of the count all but
two lots whenever a bunch of them ap-
peared in the advertisement. This Mr..
Leidigh did, and reported the result of
the count made in this way. The Board
spent several days trying to find some
reasonable grounds for Mr.. Muller's Pc
culiar notion of emitting to count and
pay for advertising those punched lots,
but could not find anything upon which
it would consistently be done. We did
not personly attend all of their delibera-
tions on the matter. but compromise
was suggested to us to settle on the
price per square provided by law in the
same act which we agreed to do, and
supposed the board had also agreed to
that method but on making the measure-
ment it was found the latter method
would amount to twelve dollars more
than the way we had figured it, so the
board dropped that and finally allowed
the bill at ten cents for each lot and
twenty five cents for each tract without
dropping anything out as Muller's theory
contemplated.
In conclusion we will say that the
hoard of County Commissioners used
more than ordinary diligence In con-
sidering the claims referred to In this
4