Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1914-02-06
cents an inch flat" for ordinary COM

Our impression is that In TIE OLD
days when the rates for legal adver-
tising were first established by law,
there was a provision that the news
paper must not charge these rates un-
less it made the same charge for
other advertising Of the same charac-
ter. This statement, however, is made
mainly on the authority Of tradition
handed down to us through previous
generations, and although there is no
question Of it's reasonableness. to es-
tablish it's absolute correctness, would
require more labor than we care at
this time to give to the subject.
So far as The Enquirer Is individual
ly concerned, we care very little about
whether this bill passes or not, as we
practice the very principle it embo-
dies. We have never charged the full
rate prescribed by law for legal ad-
vertising, and we have invariably
made it rule to give to the COM
mercial advertiser the same rate we
exact of the legal advertiser. Also we
allow the legal advertiser the same
rate we allow the commercial adver-
tiser.
1t is a fact however, that many
newspapers charge the full legal rate
for legal advertising Of whatever ma
ture, and we know Of many instances
where newspapers, through ignorance,
If not design, have charged more for
such advertising than the law allows
them to charge, notwithstanding the
fact that every bill rendered for such
service must be submitted under oath.
AS to, what may have been Senator
Carlisle's purpose in introducing this
bill we do not know; but we do not
hesitate to assert that there Is a great
deal to be said on both sides Of the
question.
it is a fact that the legal rates for
advertising have been the basis Of not
a little abuse and much graft; but the
subject is one that is difficult Of COM
prehensive explanation to the public,
only small portion Of which has a
comprehensive practical knowledge Of
the newspaper advertising question.
Presumably, Of course the key to
the value of newspaper advertising is
value received; but there enters into
that question so many different con-
siderations that conclusive argument is
practically impossible, especially in
the case Of interests that do not want
to be convinced.
One Of the greatest abuses that has
grown out of the official advertising
question is the practice Of public off,
cials and others in using their prerog-
ative in the placing Of such advertis-
ing to support newspapers in which
they may be interested, or to coerce
newspapers that may be unfriendly to
them. For instance, it would he easy
to cite many cases where newspapers
have been established in this state by
politicians on the theory that they
could be supported by the official all
vertising controlled by such politi-
clans, and in such cases Of course it is
not difficult to assume that the public
is made to pay for great deal of ad-
vertising that is entirely unnecessary.
The only effect that Senator Car
isles bill could have on a case like
this would be reduce the amount of
other peoples money available to poll
ticians for use in supporting such
However, the proposition that a
should he entitled to
charge more for an official advertise
ment than for commercial advertise
ment is not without merit The ne
cessity for absolute accuracy in con-
nection with ar official advertisement
is very great, and consequently there
is often much responsibility. For in
stance, under the law, certain adver-
tisements must be published in spec
flied manner, and any deviation from
that specified manner might cause Sc
rious complications. Again, in the case
Of some Of these advertisements it is
necessary for the publisher to make
proof of publication, and this involv-
ing additional trouble, should carry
additional compensation.
A case in point has come within our
recent experience. Some months ago
the editor of The Enquirer was sum-
moned as a witness to prove the pub
lication of legal notice that was pub
lished in this paper in 1904. Notwith-
standing the fact that he was able to
furnish a copy Of the paper containing
the notice, he was subpoenaed to three
different terms Of the court to testify
to the one fact Of publication. When
finally the editor was about to be
sworn for the defense a few days ago,
the attorney for the plaintiff announc-
ed that he would admit the fact that
the notice had been published. The
amount received for publishing the
in the first place was
50, and the editor would have beer
glad to have forfeited that sum to es-
cape the trouble and annoyance to
which he was unnecessarily subjected.
But as we have stated, we are not
concerned whether Senator Carlisle'a
bill becomes a law or not.
We look upon legal advertising just
as we do commercial advertising, as g.
strictly business proposition. We feel
that we are giving value received to
whether their business be
legal or commercial We feel pity If no.
for the official who would
try to bribe or punish us by means OF
official advertising, and If the com"
mercial advertiser thinks he can pun
ish us more than he will punish him"
self by withholding his business, he is
welcome We say this in the light OF
our knowledge of the commercial
quality of the advertising values We
have to offer, and with full apprecia-
tion of the fact that people who look
upon money spent for advertising as
subsidy or graft, cannot possibly com"
prehend the economic soundness Of our
position.
According to our view, as we have
stated, advertising, whether legal or
commercial, is purely business prop
osition, involving the fundamental
of value received, and we do
not see how we can look at the matter
from any other standpoint and main
hn nnt fF