Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-10-30
Tuesday, October 80, 1906.
The Journal and the Tax Hearing.


The files of the Journal will be
searched in vain for any editorial eX-
nression hostile to the Edwards Manu-
factury Company. On the other haho
tic editorial columns have maintained
consistently a friendly attitude to-
wards this, and other corporations
whose business enterprise constitute
an important factor in the life ana
urogress of our city. We CONFESS
therefore, that we were somewhat
SURPRISED to find that counsel Tor the
eomuanv had put the Journal before
th. court in the light of a partisan,
and had even held it to be guilty Oh
contempt Of court in the manner IN
which il had reported the hearings.
These charges were confined wholly
To the report Of the hearing of October
"a. and pertained to the letter of Hon.
" ID. Pencil to Agent Pratt relative
IN the valuation of the mill. Inc
Journal has not undertaken to make
or publish a short hand report of this
ease for the reason that it has neither
the time nor the space to handle it in
such voluminous manner from one
session to another. It's reporter mas
been instructed to follow the testi-
mony carefully and to fairly summarize
the principal points in evidence. 1t is
not claimed that he is infallible. En-
rors may have occasionally occurred
in his reports, but both he and the
journal have stood ready from the
first, and stand ready now, to make
full and prompt correction of any error
that has appeared or may by any in
advertance or misapprehension appear
in his reports, whenever they are call
ed to his attention.
Two errors were specially noted by
counsel for the company in the Jour-
nails report of Oct. "a. One was the
statement that in the report of Hon.
w. D. Pencil as presented to the
commissioners the estimate on the mill
was $7333, 500 while in the original let
900 1t is only just to the reporter TO
say that in his copy the first figures
were stated at $753,50 and that the
error was purely a typographical one
for which he was not responsible. 1t
is also only just to Mr.. Pencil to
state the further fact brought out by
counsel that in his original report to
Mr.. Pratt in the form Of a letter he
included 100000 for the item of stock
in process which was not before the
court This was a legal error and was
struck out of the schedules. He also
omitted in his letter to Mr.. Pratt the
moisteuing apparatus of $4,000 which
schedules submitted to the court
$153500. This was as the reporter
stated il. and but for the typographical
error above noted. it would have so
appeared in the paper.
Another error appeared where Mr.
PrnncIl was reported as saying rela-
tive to the changes in his letter. that
he sat down with Mr.. Baker and Mr.
Rand in making them The stenog-
rapher's notes show that he spoke
only of Mr.. Rand in this immediate
connection. In view of the general
character of this testimony, and that
preceding it the miSapprehensior
was not surprising, ncverthe-
less II is 4 matter of deep regret
that it should have occurred, and the
Journal would gladly and promptly
hay" corrected it. had its attention
been called To it, Aside from these
tw" errors-neithcr of them intentional
We think the Journals report viii
be horne out by the notes of the
stenographer
Hon. w. ID. Pencil OF Lewiston is
m honored and upright citizen of on,
state. and the journal would certain,
have no desire to place him before the
public in 4 false light on this or an,
other matter