The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1895-11-01
MHASHES TIE TAX FAKE.
The News Now Admits That It Is Error In
Regard to Tax Judgments.

Still Barping Against the Commercial
Company and Speaks Of It Only Out o.
49, Judgments Filed for Delinquency
Of Personal Taxes.
The News comes out again with an
other canard, "Are Favored in Taxes
Everyone knows E. F. Tenant as a
bull-dozing, mean, scurrilous and lying
Ehelp. He has not the first particle
of honor in bis makeup and often uses
his dirty sheet as a means Of venting
personal spite. During the present
campaign, be said: ave nominated a
Democratic ticket for the purpose of
beating the d" Pops" When con-
fronted with this statement he denied
it. The one who heard him say it land
he was not a Pop was brought to Mr..
Tenants face and reafirmed what
Tenant had said. "Well,o said the
arch liar, 81 did say it, and that is what
We ara going to do" Later he said in
The News that this lie of Marve Tom
blin's hal fallen fat.
viii the good people of the county
take any stock in Tenant or The
News? Now as to his last deliverance
Of a dose of bile. He assumes that the
Populist county officials have discrimi,
mated in the collection or non-collec-
tion of taxes, and that "there is method
in it, " "people who stand in not both
cred"
Neither Mr.. Brown, while he was in
Office, nor Mr.. Rulon, the present treas
urer, nor Mr.. Haney, the clerk of the
district court, nor any other county
official, has been party to any such
discrimination. And the assertion
that there has been between the
POpulist county officials any such
understanding. method, or agreement
to discriminate, tacit or otherwise is
bald-faced lie.
Mr.. Haney denies point blank that
Mr., Murphy asked for the list of 1894
and he denies Mr.. Tenants statement
that he (Tennant) asked for the list of
1893. The News statement last week
was that judgment had not been enter
ed on the docket against certain par
ties. Now he says, "On that list is what
we printed and it is on the list today"
He would like to switch now. That the
delinquent personal taxes of certain
parties were not on the judgment
docket was his position last week. Now
it is, "They are all on the list" Of
course they are. That was The Re-
PUBLIC's position last week, and that
the list was a part Of the records, and
subject to inspection, and a lien on all
available property. In other words he
admits this week that he lied last week.
Last week it was, mo judgment against
the Goodland Commercial company"
This week, "There is a judgment
against the Goodland Commercial COM
pany."
Here is another lie: He says, "The
books of the treasurer's office do not
show that tax warrants for the year
1894, for the personal taxes of the
GoOdland Commercial company in
Itasca and State Line townships we're
issued"
Mr.. Tenant inquiries, "Why has not
the tax been issued upon?" We will
refer him to warrant book stub Nos.
587 and $50, which plainly show they
have been issued upon, and his state
ment to the contrary is a malicious
lie.
Moreover, these warrants were issued
at the same time as other warrants
were issued. There has been no recent
"fx,up" of books. Come again, Mr..
Tenant.
Everybody knows Tenant to be an
INSCRIPTIONS ouss and nearly every
one knowing him we'll, either dislikes
or despises him, and generally both.
If Mr.. Tenant wanted to be fair,
why did he not say that there were 1856
other cases on the same list with the
Goodland Commercial company against
whom judgment had been entered for
the delinquent personal taxes of 1898?
This would show there was no discrimi-
nation, and that would not serve his
purpose.