Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1908-07-23
A 5000 Chronicle FaIsehood.

WYNN ~ DgNbOA gh0b 50 $3.50 Nt'~RNNes
written Communication by one
the proprietors Of the Chronicle ths
that paper proposed to open up av
cious attack upon Judge Moore jus
| on the eve Of the election when "a
would be too late to counterfeit 1t
influence"
The direct attack 10 upon the coun
ty commissio but each attacl
winds up with side swipe at Judg'
Moore in futile attempt to try t.
show that he is in some way respon
sible. The last assault upon the
county commissioners was contained
in yesterdays Chronicle and contains
the usual false insinuatiou against
Judge Moore.
Three falsehoods are in the article
which when eliminated leave the rest
Of the article as much Of o windbag
as is the paper in which the article
appears.
The first faIsehood reads:
"And Judge Moore granted the man who
made all this troub Judgment for $500
This statement the Chronicle knew
to be a falsehood when it published
the article. There never was any
judgment rendered by Judge Moore
against the county in favor Of the tax
ferret for $4,000. The only judgment
ever rendered against the county was
for $4,000 and the Chronicle states
that that Judgment was rendered at
the request of the county attorney
and Of the county commissioners
II the judgment was rendered against
the county at the request Of the coun-
ty attorney and the county commits
sioners as the Chronicle states then
why was Judge Moore to bIameP
The second falsehood in the article
reads:
1.-THE total tax collected through the tax
ferret was S1O,s7S35, but the supreme court
said that of this amount %, 5OS7 was illegal
ly collected and that the parties paying 1t
could secure its return"
The Chronicle knew this to be q
falsehood when it published it. The
supreme court never had the question
Of the legality or ilIegality of the pay
ment of the taxes before it, and it
never gave any expression in its
opinion in the case as to whether the
tax collected was legal or illegal. The
only question which was before the
supreme court in the case was as to
whether or not, If the county commits.
sioners were unable to find all the
taxable property OF the county by the
ordinary method, they had the right
to hire someone to assist them in
finding it. Judge Moore decided that
il any taxpayer was concealing his
and the commissioners
could not discover it themselves they
had the right to hire someone to look
IL up. The supreme court decided
that il the county commissioners can
not find such concealed property, then
the fellow who failed to make a cor
rect return to the assessor may go
scott free. And that was everything
hat ever went to the supreme court
md it is the only thing that the SUI
creme court passed upon, and the
Chronicle knew it bat in order to de-
,eive the public that paper deliber-
.tely mis-states the decision Of the SUI
)reme court.
The third falsehood in the Chronicle
article is contained In the conclusion
IS to what the tax ferret cost the
county. The fact sis that the figures ]
presented by the Chronicle show upon
heir face that instead Of the county
osing anything by the act of the
county commissioners in employing |
he tax ferret, the county after pay
ng the tax ferret and all costs and
expenses, are still ahead the sum Of
2, 925.59. Here are the Chronicles
'wn figures; 6
,otal amount collected through III
the tax ferret. SlO,S7S 10
Total amount paid out and re- 4
funded ...,......... ................ 1859 70
,eavIng a net balance in favor Of I
the county of......"..... ...,". ts,s1o % a
The figures produced by the Chron-
Gle are not correct as to the amount {