Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1908-02-11
THE FACT REMAINS.

Independence Ofe., req. y, "
Editor Hayter:
Dear Sir: have always regarde
you as very much of a gentleman an
a fair man In every respect, and a
such l ask you in justice to the count.
court and TO myself to publish thi
communication In regard to you
article In the Observer Of last Frida,
concerning the delinquent tax roll nov
being published In the West Sid,
Enterprise.
AS to the method Of publication O.
tax rolls In Polk county before 1907
know nothing and care less, 50 dis
miss that portion Of your article with
no comment My bid for publishing
the tax roll was III cents per brewer
line as you state. The county court
declared both Mr.. Fiske's and my bid
above the legal rate and 80 notified us.
contended that my bid Of III cents
per BREWER line was slightly below the
legal rate and guaranteed TO the court
that the cost to the county should not
be more than the legal rate still
contend that ia cents per BREWER line
Is less and that the list as being pub
lished now will prove out less in the
entirety regardless of your labored
effort to prove otherwise.
You have taken Mr.. Montgomery's
description and set up parallel notices
In BREWER and nonpariel and find my
charge z cents too high. Now, Mr..
Hayter, when you set Mr.. Petty's notice
in BREWER and nonpariel type it
appears as follows:
W. b. Pettys, q half of Lots 6 and
@, Blk 8, Hills Add to Indepen-
dence Tax $l2.s5, penalties $2.-
So, printers costs 500, total sl6.I3
w. b. Pettys, E half OF Lots and 9, Blk
o. Hills Add TO Independence. Tax Si2.
50, penalties S25s, printers costs $l,OO, to-
,.,..,,,,,,. SlB,43
Your readers will now see that Mr..
Pettys would have had to pay 80 cents
more had II been set in nonpariel type
as you illustrate II should be. SO 1t
will be found throughout the entire
tax roll. An occasional one will pay
few cents more, others few cents less
and taking the entire list doubt IL
there is six bits (75c) difference one
way or the other and that little old
measly six bits is what you are
endeavoring to raise the devil about
and devote about $50 worth Of your
valuable space In an abortlve effort to
show the error Of the county court.
Mr. Hayter you published the tax
roll last year and to illustrate how you
set 1t last year, according to the files
OF your paper, and the way you recon-
mended 1t TO be set this year the illus
tration would appear as follows:
Abbie NJ. Boody-Lots 2 aud Of
Bee. %, Up, s., R. w., con,
II. 5. Montgomery, Falls City Lumber Co.
agent, beginning 81 degrees 81 minutes
The first two lines show exactly the
way you set partial description last
year; the second two lines show how
you recommended it TO be set this year.
WhyS Was 1t for the purpose Of put.
ting the West Side Enterprise aud the
county court Ia box aud imply Job
berry on the part of both OF themp Had ,
the West Side Enterprise followed 4,
your system Of year ago and set the =.
list in nonpariel type as you advised !,
his year "Old Mr.. Montgomery" :
would have gone down into his pants y
md dug up $3.50 for fourteen lines TO :
iquare the deal or is cents moro than i
What his notice calls for, for printers h
osts as itnow is, and which you assert =
8 2 cents too high. You accuse the =, I
Vest Side with tricks In type. Have y
ou not used tricks In type In an =,
ttempt to prove your fallacious \
=
You do the county court base In. ~ ~
lstice when you say that the court !,
Id not take proper preoaution in let. :,
ng this contract Why did you not -
lay fair with the court aud publish -
ne full record as appeared In the pro y,
eeding2 The memorandum OF the :,
ontract sent me is as follows: :,
ORDER OF COURT. .
the Matter OF Bids for Publishing -
the Delinquent Tax Roll. ~
Il appearing to the Court that the -