The Brookings register. [volume] (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1903-1971, 1912-03-07

The new! papers OF any community
are looked 70 for explanation and dis
cussion Of the merits and dement's OF
any legislative proposition, and to af-
ford a medium by which any citizen
may express his views to the public.
The newspapers are the natural dis
s%eminators of such matters, social,
civic and political, as require public
ity and discussion. Under the new
law some Of the grayest problems Of
|statecraft are brought before the pub
lies with the same dignity, impressive
ness and authority as accompanies
the arrival Of a spring seed catalogue.
The issue between the newspaper
men and Yourself is not what you
would evidently like the general pub
lie to think that it is, and not what
you are trying to make them believe
that it is.
You attempt to make the publishers
responsible for the old Jaw. in the
eyes of the voters, and to hoodwink
the latter into believing that the
newspaper men have been and are
standing up for the old law.
You hnOw better.
The spectacle of a self-styled re-
former making his campaign by an
appeal to the prejudice of a public
not hitherto sufficiently interested to
secure accurate information on the
subject, and at the same time trying
to excite that prejudice by befogging
the issue is not edifying.
Webster's dictionary contains the
following definitions: "Pettifogging,
Guilty of %chicanery. Meanly quib-
bling" "Pettifog. to argue trickily."
If one were looking for a word to de-
scribe your methods tersely he need
not 90 farther.
The amended law which was favor
ed by the newspaper men at the 1911
session of the legislature, and which
you opposed with vituperation, ac-
cording to the testimony of those
present, provided that the amount to
be paid official newspapers for pub
fishing proposed constitutional
amendments and referred laws in
should not in any case exceed 5000.
which is less than one-third of what it
in 1910 at the legal rate. If
there We're no amendments nor refer
I'd laws there would be no expense.
This rate was regarded as a reason
lble rate. because in the event of
here being a large amount of this
lind of matter it could be secured in
or other form from one of the
arger printing houses of the state,
nd If it were much less than 5000
worth, each newspaper would set it's
'wn matter, as had been the practice
n years preceding 1910. With no
from any one
Your proposition to debate your
that "The new law will save
state nearly 5000, 900 at the next
election" is ridiculous. Your state
might be within thirty or forty
per cen OF the truth only when COM
pared with the old law, which no one
is defending-or has defended.
That part of the new law which cur
tails the amount of matter on the Of
fetal ballot was approved by the press
of the state, in advance, and indeed it
seems probable that the author of the
bill got his idea from reading press
discussion Of the matter, notably that
or the Argus-Leader, whose excellent
editorials on the short ballot are still
recalled. You surely do not mean that
the new law will save the state near.
ly $500, 600 as compared with the
law advocated by the newspaper men
In 1911, as a little applied elementary
arithmetic shows that the difference
would be about $40, 900, which would
be distributed among nearly 200 news
papers, and, If the publication were
so performed, instead of securing the
printing of a pamphlet distributed
ten months before the election is to
be held, it would give the voter four
weekly reminders Of the matters to
come before his attention at a.time
when his mind was naturally on the
subject Of his duties on election day.
In Grant county the pamphlets were
distributed in January. Any other
wise qualified voter who establishes
residence in this state between that
time and May 5, 1912, will be a legal
voter here in November. This ia a
new state. We have a considerable
influx OF population every spring. How
do these newcomers get service.
Your obvious Discrimination to make