Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-01-23

i
Enterprise. We have a proposition in
writing from one of the papers in the
present combine, suggesting that we club
together with it and give it 10 cents and 5
cents square for its portion of the pick
ings, or not exceeding S10i in round sum.
But We have invariably refused these
and why? We believe that the
as done by THE ENQUIRER,
is worth the rates prescribed by law, be-
cause squarely upon the merits of the
case, Notwithstanding the fact that the
other papers charge less, individual busi-
ness men, as business proposition, pay
us those rates. Then why should we,
having given value received for our earn
ings, pay tribute to others who cannot Of
fer such values?
Here is where the principle comes in.
Take all of the claims about competition,
saving money to the people, etc. Where
would have been the "saving" if The EN-
oUIRER had gone into this combine, eth
er in past years or this year? But we don't
claim that we kept out for the purpose
of saving the county money. We had no
such idea or intention. 1t was the princi-
pie of "all we have for defense; but not
one cent for tribute" Our taxes are all
that the people of York expect Of US in
the shape of public contributions, and of
these, by the way, we contribute more
than twice as much as all the balance of
the publishers in the county put together.
Our statement as to the value of our ad-
yertising columns will be denied by the
other papers, because they know that the
production of proof, absolutely convinc-
ing to their friends, is impossible; but
about the other apparently more ex-
travagant assertion, they won't say a
word. They know that to get the truth
one has only to look at the county
treasurer's books.
And why have we agreed to do this
work without compensation? We are
p printing newspaper to inform, instruct
and benefit. We do not spare any reas-
enable expense in the purchase of i'm
portant news. Much of this advertising
is important. By their action in propos-
ing to let this advertising to the lowest
bidder, even when no longer required to
do so by law, it appeared that the county
board of commissioners were not disposed
to take into consideration the all-impor-
tant question of merit. We were unwil-
ling to form any kind of combination.
We thought that the other papers would
have to do it; we had positive informa
ton that they were going to do it, and
not only knowing their combined weak
ness as well as they; but also satisfied of
the fact that even if they failed to get
pay they, like THE ENQUIRER, would be
to do most of the advertising
anyway, we just decided to "aim low"
Well, this is all for the present, and we
hope our readers will excuse us for in
dulging in matters which appear to be so
purely personal. It will be remembered,
however, that notwithstanding all the
charges and insinuations, etc., that have
from time to time been hurled against us
by would-be competitors, we have not
previously said word in regard to this
matter either by way of explanation or
defense. We do not feel even now that
it is incumbent upon us to straighten this
matter out; but, perhaps, under all the
it is just as we'll to have
an understanding, and so here is a full,
frank statement. 1t will hardly be Of
v cry great interest to our subscribers, it
is true but as the newly formed York
co unity combination (Herald, Yeoman
and Times) is no doubt in splendid
humor for fight just now, this will serve
as good target for its squirtguns. We
pro mise to say nothing further unless
one of them happens to raise a truthful,
or apparently truthful, point which seems
to be worthy of notice.