Durango semi-weekly herald., 1901-07-15
sesa.rs win rsm.mbsr til. an


rIonncsuaeut Wsdassdsy " The effect
tGat TLe Dsuoci.t mad Obtained =
-jodement against The Herald FOR SAP
50. In connection with this there Is
something the public should know.
There is welkestablisbed axiom
that newspapers shonId not cnt each
others throats--that they should pull
together OH public work. To this
end when Dave Day was running the
Weekly Democrat. The Herald and
that paper. along with The Wage Earn
er, entered Into an agreement to di-
vide on city and county work. The
Herald received the contract and that
year paid Dave Day something like
$500 as his share OF the profits. There
was only a verbal agreement, but The
Herald considers verbal agreements as
binding as written ones. The follow
ing year Force WAS In control. and the
same kind OF an agreement %as en-.
tered into as to printing. We all
know the result Force and The Dem.
ocrat received the benefit OF something
like 81 900 and then refused to live
mp to the agreement. This. OF course.
year and bids were put In for county
work In the trial the other day be-
fore Judge Houx, Frank Hartman tes-
tined that he was business manager OF
The Democrat In 1898 and that he con
ferred with Force In August concern
Ing city printing and II was agreed to
continue the division arrangement.
and with this understanding Hartman
asked to be allowed to put in the only
bid. which was granted. The Demo
crat was awarded the printing for
one year from August. Al that time
John q. Higgins was doing the job
work on The Democrat under lease.
He recognized the validity of the con
tract by making settlements according
TO agreement including the months
OF January. February and March, 1899.
In April Dave Day and Mr.. Higgins
took charge OF The. Democrat Mr..
Higgins lease terminated 80 far as
Job work was concerned and Dave Day
and The Democrat succeeded to the
Force contract for city printing. At
that time Mr.. Higgins said he was In
favor OF carrying out the contract as
agreed upon. M The Democrat accept.
ed the contract to do the city work.
OF course. II one was binding the 9th
er was. Later Mr.. Higgins stated
Day would not divide according to
agreement
The next year. 1900. n written agree.
ment was signed concerning county
work When final settlements were
10 be made In January OF this year. Mr..
Higgins claimed &74 and some odd
cents due The Democrat This paper
objected, but said II he would make
out statement OF expense this paper
would settle and pay any Legitimate
difference. Matters went along with
out n statement being furnished.
Some four weeks ago The Democrat
came out In clustering article claim
Ing s4G,75 due II on the 1900 con
tract and said II would give three days
Of grace TO call and settle or suit would
follow. Knowing that The Herald
did not owe that much. which had been
| reduced from $74. payment was not
made. and instead $50 was deposited
that The Democrat had no such money
coming. Notwithstanding Day re.
fused to he honorable enough to live
up to the former agreement. The Her.
aid was ready at any time to pay the
difference on the 1900 contract accord
Ing to its figuring. but was not will
Ing TO be robbed. consequently allow
cd suit TO be brought in order that
certain facts might be established
First-That The Democrat wilfully
lied when II said The Herald owed
II sis,75 and that The Democrat Day,
had shown himself to he dishonora.
BILE In not living up to the city agree.
ment after receiving full benefit.
| The trial came on Monday. and low
and behold. after all the bluster. Mr.
| Higgins went op the stand and proved
a claim OF only $3.50. to which he lat
or admitted reduction of $3.50. max
ing u total sum Of only $l4.30 due The
Democrat from The Herald on 1900
contract. instead of the $74 first claim
ed. and the $iS75 claimed In the pa.
per, When II came down to n matter
OF facts and oath the amount dwindlcd
very materially. and ms The Herald adj
| uiittn III lts counter -tnaTHe over Slo
due The Democrat. no contentious
were made against The Democrat
claim for 1900. but asked Judgment
for some $50 on account OF $57 due
The Herald on city contract. which Is
ns honestly due this paper as any
| claim in the world And to prove
further. Mr., Higgins under oath
stated that he was In favor OF carry
ing out the city contract but that Day
would not do so. II was these facts
we desired established before u court
| of Justice In order that the people
may know the manner i'm which Day
secured city work-hy n confidence
game. and he Is now In possession OF
money Ms rightfully due The Herald
as any moral obligation ever entered
into. We will have to give Mr. Hig
gins credit for desiring to live up to
! thp CITY nprppmant hut Mr. nny will