The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1898-01-20

H hAo Ueoal OlIS IJolIoy vi L 1Ib A'n
PUBLICAN since it has been owned by
its present proprietor to avoid contro-
versy with other papers as far as pos
sible. We do not, therefore, write
this for the purpose of inviting con-
troversy nor for the purpose of giving
the journal our space for free adver-
Using, but because the statements
made in the last edition of that paper
are of such a character that they can
not be allowed to pass unnoticed.
We presume the County Commits
sioners of Garrett county can take
care of the charges of official corrup-
ton in connection with the contract
for county printing made against
them and we propose to notice the
statements in question only so far as
The REPUBLICAN is CONSERVED as q
party to that contract.
The J0uTnGE informs it's readers
that it put in a bid for the county
printing which waa returned TO it I'M
opened. 1t is certain, therefore, ac-
cording to the journal, that the Com
missiOners never saw it's bid and that
the printing was not put up to be
auctioned off to the lowest bidder
without reference to other important
and essential considerations. There
is a certain amount of printing which
the law requires shall be published in
two papers. Even if the JOErRGI was
willing to be one OF these and the
Commissioners had accepted its price
of three hundred and fifty dollars,
neither the JO2Jg9sGl nor the Commits
sionersseould have required Tne other
paper to accept the one hundred and
fifty dollars whi6n the JO1lrE0J says
would have been enough for the work.
In fact the Commissioners could not
get either of the other papers to make
a contract at all for this work at any
such price. 1t is plain that tbs Jour-
nal bid three hundred and fifty dol
lars for itself and one hundred and
fifty dollars for another paper, .mak-
ing a total of i've hundred dollars,
but the journal was not able te de
liver the goods and could not vouch
that the work would be done by yone
of the other papers. Il could have
given bond for the performance of
its part of thecontract bat that would
have left the Commissioners without
the second paper, which is absolutely
required by law. Perhaps the JoeG'-
nal will tell the tax payers how the
Commissioners could have gotten one
of the other papers to publish county
matters if it had refused 10 do the
work at the price fixed for it by the
Journal.
THUS" says the Journal, 1.-the
Journals efforts to save the tax pay
ers of this county from eXhorbitant
expenses in the matter Of printing has
been thwarted." How and when did
the Journal become the champion OF
the tax payers? WBat tax payers
does it represent? A casual glance at
the facts will convince the reader
that this sudden interest in the tax
payers is assumed for the occasion
and should deceive no one.
The Journal says every tax payer
is personally interested" We grant
this and call its attention to the fact
that we pay taxes on an assessment of
So, 225 whilst the owner of the Jour-
'aq5 pays on 81, 700. On the rule laid
down by it we are, to say the least, as
much interested personally as the
Journal.
We have taken some trouble to as
certain something about the number
of tax payers reached by the Journal.
We have the assurance in writing that
there are delivered at the following
offices the following number of Jour-
nails, to-wit Friendsville, 7; Selbys- |
port, IA; Bittinger. 5; Accident, 8;
Thayerville, 3; Hoyes, 8. From this
showing we are led to conclude that
5he Journal, although self-constitut-
ID does not rpprpSpD+ a very large