The Penn's Grove record., 1896-04-10
Eacis. NOT Mud.

spite Oh our part. NVt az az" W.
have no personal grievance with the
Monitor Register, Mr.. Ricbman, nor
| any other assessor. We saw an assess
ment law was disobeyed and the oath
of office disregarded by some public OIL
Gcials. We claim that public laws and
the actions of public officials in filling
their office are proper subjects for pub
lie criticism and that is the reason we
made it. AS Mr.. Richman seemed to
be The most prominent mover for the
repeal of the new law by drafting a re-
pealer, he therefore, has taken our criti-
cism more to himself and thus feels ag-
grieyed. The greater the talent and
prominence of a man the more is eX-
pected of him in fulfilling the law.
The Monitor Register says WHEN all
the assessors unite in cOndewning the
law, from a practical test of it, gives
their opinion more weight than II
from an outsider" We have no OBJ
jections to the assessors condemning
the law, all we object to is officers OF
the law not carrying out what they are
elected to do. 1t is not for them to
| say in their performance whether 1t
| shall be carried out. 1t is their duty
to do so, regardless of the consequences.
Ii they wish they have a perfect right
to work for its repeal in the manner OF
a "logician," but demanding its repeal
| in the manner of a warrior is not in ae-
cordance with our mode of government.
Because the Monitor Register CLASH
fies all the assessors as disregarding the
law, when the assessors Of Penn's Grove
Borough and U. 2. Neck observed it,
we desired to show that these observed
their oa,hs OF Office and made assess
ments legally. They made a practica!
test of the law by oDeying it and found
it worked satisfactorily, while those
who did not could not have made a
practical test if they did not observe it,
therefore, as "a lOgician' w0uldargue,
the weight Of the testimony is in our
favor of the law, according to the
MONITOR Registers argument.
Mr.. Richman, in a personal letter in
the Monitor-Register passes his compli-
ments on the RECORD by comparing us
to ''one of Ben Buffers 40-Jackass-
power mud machines" We were not
aware that we had such a tremendous
power. We never claimed it, but as he
is a good Judge and seems to have got
ten at the wrong end of the animals
and been completely kicked out, as he
has not one argument of ga logician"
to advance in opposition to the law,
MOI in favor of the action of those as
SCISSORS who ~disregarded it, be seems to
have landed way back into ancient
times, twenty-five centuries ago, for he
deifies us by calling US a Polyphemus
and Momus, who were some of the
mythical gods of the ancients. We have
heard it said that it shows that a mar
looses his head when lie has no argu-
ments and passes such compliments.
When we see a mans mind so enrapped
with such ancient myths we can better
understand why lie wishes to make as
sessments by an ancient law which has
become a myth, instead of by a reform,
up-to-date law made by a genuine re-
form legislature. AS for mud, if their
is no cohesion it will soen rub or wash
off.
lie says "The assessments was more
equitably made and the spirit of the
law more observed in the breach than
in the observance" That is II child's
excuse for not observing the law. Where
vas the eQuibility and spirit observed?
Where he made the assessment accord
ing TO the old law where the assessor
Of the adjoining township agreed with
him or where he made according to the
new law, where the ~neigEboring assessor
observed the law?
We can see why those assessors who
are afraid of work oppose the law. BY
following the old law The same number
of acres and valuations are the same
and all the assessors have to do is to
copy the old duplicate, and this v
much work for which they were extra
ordinarily paid last year, but assess.
ments by the old law are illegal and
cannot be legally collected. if payment
is refused.
We believe the new law which di-
vides farms and assesses each part in
the township where it lays is more cor
rect than the old law which assessed a
farm in the township in which the
buildings stand. The buildings on a
farm might stand IN an acre of ground
in N township and $1,000 acres might
be in another township, and through it
might be five miles of roads to keep in
repair. Would 1t be just and right for
the township in which the buildings
stood to receive all the tax on that prop.
erty and the township in which we're
hundreds of acres to receive nothing
and have the expense of those roads2
After the assessment under The new
law is made once it is NJ more trouble
than under the old law. 1t would not
take as much time and expense to make
the assessments under the new law as
to go to Trenton TO get it repealed. AS
it has not been repealed We presume it
has met with few objections outside of
Salem county.
EA