Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1903-02-04
Pure BuncOmbe.

AS we have been asked by several
persons what is the law regarding the
enforcement Of payment of arrearage
on subscriptions to newspapers, we
publish the following decisions Of the
supreme court on the matter, for the
information of all concerned:
Il. Subscribers who do not give ex-
press notice to the contrary are con-
sidered as wishing to renew their sub
scription.
go If subscribers order the discon-
tinuance Of their periodicals, the pub
Usher may continue to send them until
all the dues are paid.
''3. If subscribers neglect or refuse
to take the periodical from the postof-
flee to which. they are directed they
are responsible until they have settled
their. bill and ordered them discon-
tinued.
~. If subscribers move to other
places without informing the publisher,
and the papers are sent to the former
address, they are held responsible.
SO. The courts have decided that re-
fusing to take the periodical from the
Office, or moving and leaving them un-
called for, Is prima facie evidence Of
intentional fraud.
IS. If subscribers pay in advance
they are bound to give notice at the
end Of the time if they do not wish
to continue taking it; otherwise the
publisher is authorized to send it, and
the subscriber will be responsible un-
| til an express notice with payment OF
all arrearages Is sent to the publish
err"
The latest postal laws are such that
newspaper publishers can arrest any
one for fraud who takes a paper and
| refuses to pay for it.
Under this law the man who allows
his subscription to run along for some
time unpaid, and then orders 1t discon-
| tinued, or orders the postmaster to
mark 1t refused" and have postal
| card sent notifying the publisher, is
| liable to arrest and fine, the same as
for theft.-Union Times.
The foregoing from the Union Times
is Of especial interest in that there Is
not a sound proposition between the
word "as" at the beginning, and the
word theft" at the end. We are not
tdisposed to hold the Times responsible
for any part of it. 1t originated in the
brain Of some slick publisher with a
confidence turn, away back in the
days when people were not as we'll in
formed as now, and has since been
accepted by different publishers as
sound doctrine, not exactly because
| it struck them as reasonable and just;
but more especially because it seems
to give them special privileges, to the
enjoyment of which no business man
with instinct ordinarily human would
be averse.
If the first proposition were sound,
every citizen Of reasonable caution
| would do we'll to steer clear Of sub
scribing for any kind Of newspaper,
for having once subscribed, he would
ever after be annoyed by the prob
lem of how he could secure his re-
lease in case release should ever
be desirable. The second proposition
is just as silly as the first, and so Is
the third, fourth, fifth and sixth; but
none of them are further from the
ed in the last two paragraphs.
1t is not the purpose Of either the
state or Federal government to give
newspaper publishers special privileges
over people engaged in other voca-
| tions in the matter Of collecting debts,
and they do not do so. So far as the
laws are concerned publishers of news
papers must treat the commodities