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

Editor /. d. Aldrich Of the Big
stone Headlight has mGde the fol-
lowing reply to Curtiss OF Aberdeen
to his challange for a debate:
Ira o. Curtisa, Aberdeen, :. ID. Dear
Sir: | have received your recent favor,
not dated, in which you invite me
to meet you in debate on the question
"Resolved, That the Curtiss Ballot
Bill results in better service than
the old publication law, and resolved,
further. That the said new law viii
save the taxpayers nearly " nun
dred thousand dollars at the next
election"
had noticed a day or two previous
to the receipt Of your letter, its pub
LEGATION in an Aberdeen daily paper,
under an appropriate caption. The
fact hat the person to whom it was
addressed, as well as several thousand
others, should have the first oppor-
tunity Of seeing it in a newspaper is
a very gratifying evidence of your APP
probation of the value of newspaper
publicity, in your own private af-
fairs.
You are very well aware that the
second part of the question, as you
state it. is not the question upon
which YOU are at variance with the
newspaper men of the state | have
never yet seen any newspaper allu-
sion to this matter which indicated
a desire TO retain the old law.
The old law was we'll meant, and
worked satisfactorily to all concern
ed until 1910, when conditions arose
under which it vas found to be a
piece of ill-digested legislation. There
being no alternative the official news
papers Of each county did the work
prescribed by law: and so far as | am
informed, none of them refused to
accept the compensation provided by
law for the work. The question of the
amOunt OF their profit accruing from
the work is not material to the issue.
The demand for the repeal of the
law was not because the newspapers
made too large a percentage of profit,
but because it cost the counties too
much money. If the newspapers had
not made a dollar on the business the
for the repeal of the law {
would have been just as insistent. .
II each newspaper had set the job 8
from its own type it would have made t
no larger profit in proportion than it !
made on smaller publications in pre-
vious years. /
In 1909 the official newspapers were a
by a serious problem.
There are not a dozen counties in
state which contain printing /
plants with enough nonpariel type to c
set all the matter that the law
them to set. What would s
nave been the legal effect If the news I
OF even one county had failed
20 provide the newspaper publicity
hen required by the law? 1t perhaps
might have invalidated the entire pro-
ceedings in regard to the referred
laws and proposed constitutional
1t would not come with good grace
from a reputable lawyer to criticise the
manner adopted by any newspaper to
secure a legal publication Of the mat.
tiers entrusted to 1t for that purpose
by the highest authority in the state,
and there is no more reason for en-
tering upon an inquiry as to the pos
sible profits secured by an official
newspaper in 1910 than to inquire in
to it's profits for any proceeding year,
or than to attempt to estimate the
inordinate profits of a country lawyer
who might be elected to fill a posi-
ton drawing $500 a year salary.
The demand for the repeal of the
law of 1905 did not arise on account
Of the percentage Of profit made by
the newspaper man, nor from the
character CT the service he was rem
dering, but from the fact, admitted by
every newspaper publisher, that un-
der certain circumstances, 1t might
cost the counties a good deal too
much money.
No doubt a dozen members, posi-
bly, q good many more, went to the
legislative session Of 1911 with some
clearly defined idea Of a bill to re-
peal this publication law. Without
attempting to analyze the conditions
which led to the approval Of your par
ticular scheme. / may say that such
newspaper criticism as 1t had received
u not, and never has been. caused by
che repeal Of the old law. which re-
pal has never been opposed. 90 far as
am aware. BY any member Of the