Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-08-27
Our Letter Box.
Candidate Tebbetts' Communication

Candid ate Tebbetts' Communication.
TO the Editor of the Kennebec Journal:
Your editorial writer of "A Ridicu-
lcus Claim is in the same class with
your constitutional lawyer: he missed
his mark by mile. On the editorial
pages OF our leading newspapers we
look for conservative views of editors
upon current topics. not for unpro-
voked assaults upon good, clean, hon
est citizens though they may fortu-
i natelN or unfortunately be candidates
| for public office.
| On your editorial page. issue of Au-
gust "A. nearly a whole column is de
voted to d roast of the Register Of
Deeds. for having mailed to his con-
stituents circular bearing informa-
ton which your own paper Of Jan.
D, last, saw tit to give to the public.
Ia this circular there was nothing
said which in any way reflected upon
any one or their administration or in
any way misrepresented anything said
by the journal. You have adopted
however, in the most aggregated form
| the very method which you charge to
me of 'misleading.'
You charge the Register of Deeds
with publishing a "garbled extract"
from the kennebec journal; while
YOU in turn proceed to publish all that
was said on that circular? Though
conscious of its truth. YOU were still
looking for criticism to offer against
an honest. faithful. efficient public Of
ticer. of the opposite party. You were
so "chlorOformed" by partizanship
that you could not perceive the differ
ence between prOtita BILE and an I'M
profitable administration of the Office
of Register of Deeds.
Nowhere in that circular does the
Register of Deeds claim any credit
for the tact that the fees received
amounted to 40 during the three
Years. 1907. 1905 and 1909: but he does
claim credit for having paid over To
the County of Kennebec the largest
amount in fees: and by so doing he
has conducted his office at net profit
to the County of 81. ASS. 40. We did not
expect the kennebec Journal would
discover that feature in the circular:
but there are hundreds of voters who
viii.
Had YOU not invited it. I should
have made no reference to the de-
tailed figures of fees paid over to the
County by my predecessor. a Republic
can incumbent. BY referring to the
records. we find that during the three
years 1904 1905 and 1906 the fees paid
over to the County We're NOR, than
$l10c less than the first three years
of my term.
The law of 1905 made practically no
change in the law of 1895. except to
more clearly indicate that all fees
should be paid over to the County.
During these last mentioned three
Years the expense to the County for
salary and clerk hire was $1,000. while
the fees paid over by the Register
were less than $1,000: showing a net
loss to the County as between fees re-
ccived and salaries paid
Quoting from your editorial 1T thus
appears that - Mr.. Smiths receipts
under the new law exceeded those OF
Mr.. Tebbetts for each of the past two
years. Adopting your own style of
argument, it certainly cannot be main
tanned that Mr.. Smiths personality or
the new law brought about any in
creased receipts TO the office; but the
new law certainly did bring about q
better settlement with the County
treasurer for fees received.
IN any sense of fairness Won cannot
IAN t" give this letter the same pub.
ne notice that you gave YOUR editoria,
Yours very truly,
LEON o. TEBBETTS