Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1903-06-24
THEY WANT TO RECOVER.
The "Machine" Gang Turn Their Guns
on The Index Again.

had long spew last week in accusing
the publishers of this paper of robbing
the county while holding the Office Of
county printer. The county attorney
Ia strong republican partisan) has in-
stituted suit against US to recover
about all the fees we were paid under
the county printer law, and the ''organ"
takes advantage of that circumstance
to attempt to interpret "steal."
The claim is made that we received
$50 to which we were not entitled.
and suit is brought to recover double
that amount. OF the $74S. 90 alleged to
be illegal, $345.l2 is money received for
publishing the tax list. $l3S 81 for
commissioners proceedings which the
county attorney, or rather the INA.
chine" says was not authorized by law
to be published. and $264.51 is claimed
to be over measurement.
There IS no contention that the publi-
cations were not made-that the space
was not rendered-simply that through
different imaginary technicalites pay
ment might be avoided and the Index
compelled to perform labor without
remuneration.
The tax list 1t EN- is not new Last
fall when we published it we filed an
affidavit of publication with the county
clerk as required under the law under
which we were elected. instead of
with the treasurer under the old law.
1t was cOntended that we should have
followed the old instead of the new law
and since we did not, we should forfeit
our money. But the commissioners
were satisfied that we had complied
with the law, and paid the bill. This
suit simply revives that contention and
can not be reasonably called anything
but political spite work.
The contention OF the organ over
the 1884 81 which it IS pleased to call
padded" puts that paper in a hole.
The records show that the Index used
the same space and no more and charg-
ed less for 1t than the Cresset did when
it did the county printing. at the same
rate for the same matter. On nearly
every item of which complaint is made
the Cresset's charges in 1900 for the
same class OF work at the same rate are
higher. To illustrate:
The county attorney says our charge
Of $44 4S far publishing the tax levy
was SLIT too high. The Cresset re.
ceived $57. for the same work at the
same rate in the fall of 1900.
10 oh Of
election proclamation In the fall of
1902 was So SO too high. The Cresset
received over $50 for the same work In
1900.
For publishing county expenditures
for October 1902 the Index received
$14.S6. Messrs. Tlncher aud Lorton
say this is $4.49 too high. yet for the
same work in October 1900 the Cresset
received $23 so.
For publishing the delinquent tax
list in the summer of 1902 the index re-
ceived $345.12 Messrs. Tincher and
Lorton claim that all Of this IS over
charge-that is. the bill is S345 II too
high. Mr.. Lorton received $497 35 for
publishing the delinquent tax list in
1900.
The Index was paid $3.50 for
publishing county expenditures In July
1902. Messrs. Lorton and Tincher claim
it was $10.53 too high. For the same
work at the same rate Mr.. Lorton re.
ceived $36. so IN 1900.
There were no commissioners pro-
ceedings published prior to the enact
ment Of the special law, hence q com.
parison on that item can not be made.
That was where Lorton expected to
work his graft, but since he was badly
.done up'' on it and we got the benefit
Of it for short time until the law was
repealed, he has frequent attacks OF
''those gripping pains" which even the
.best pill meath the stars and stripes"
can not alleviate.
For publishing other matter the re-.
specCive bills show the Cresset's charges
much higher than those of the Index,
yet that sheet has the monumen ntal gall
to publish it to the world that NE rob.
bed the county.
The fact is that the Index charged
the same. used the same system Of
measurement, set the type the same as