Iron County record. [volume] (Cedar City, Utah) 1893-1982, 1917-11-23
FRIDAY, NOV. 90, 1917.
COUNTY CLERK FINDS MARES NEST"

Z LSEWHERE in this issue Of The Record will
be found the letter from the County Clerk
referred to in last ISSUE replying to our edi-
torial published November 9th in relation to the
publication of the delinquent tax list and the dis
tribution Of other county printing and patronage.
The Clerk has written such plausible story,
and has taken such precise care to close all the
gaps in his argument, that it is really pity to
puncture it and show what sham the whole
frame-up is. If it subject which the
general public had more light and were in
little better position to form conclusions, we
would rest our case without further argument
and pass it on to the jury-the people Of the
ty But there are number of assertions made
which without a little of the light of facts shed
upon them would be misleading.
That the clerk is, among other things satir-
list of no mean attainment is proven by the begin
ming of the second paragraph of his epistle, in
which he says: "In our reply to that article we
should like it distinctly understood that we are
not here to champion the cause of either paper "
When you have read the balance of his letter we
think that you will agree with us that nothing
could be much richer than that!
Real Issue is Sdetracked
The clerk does not make reply at all to the i'm
portant statements contained in our article, that
the Parowan paper is not equipped to handle the
tax list in legal, intelligent and workman-ke
manner, and therefore if efficiency is sought, was
out of the running unless the work is to be sent
out side of the county to be set and printed but
by the pompous display of STRAW man" which
the County Clerk and the publisher of his paper
have been forming ever since that paper was
started, seeks to create false impression, but in
effect proves our statement that when there was
competition "the other paper would knucke to
the ground in order to create the impression that
its prices were extremely low, whereas, when it
had an opportunity to avoid competition it would
hold the county up for an unreasonable and eX-
horbitant figure. We cited the clerk to an example
at the close of the last Commissioners meeting
1000 voucher forms, for which he charged the
county $ll85, if our memory rightly.
From SO to 81 would have been generous price
for them. We are not able to cite many examples
for two very good reasons: First, we are not able
to attend all the meetings of the board, and it is
noticeable that the majority of the "other papers,
bills are allowed during the meetings we do not
happen to attend and second, the clerk has q very
considerate way of fathering a good many of the
bills of "the other paper" which are put in his
name or that of some other county official, "for
stationery and supplies" and therefore are not
open for criticism, and neither do they appear in
the figures which he quotes with so much pomp
and show to prove that The Record has enjoyed
much more than its share of the county patronage.
If the clerk will go through his records with as
much fairness as he tries to assume, and charge
1.-THE other paper" up with these items which he
has so artfully concealed from the Commissioners
and which he thought no one suspected he will
find it necessary to alter the figures quoted in his
letter very materially, Then, since he accuses
'the other paper of receiving $4,000 from the
publication of the 1916 tax list for nothing, would
it not be perfectly fair to charge this item Also
against its total receipts? Kindly do this, Mr..
Clerk, and then let us have the corrected answer
to your little problem
Tries to Create False IMPRESSION
By the citing of several instances, notably
the assessment and tax notices for the county,
the clerk seeks to create the impression that the
prices of The Record are excessive, and thinks,
no doubt that he is doing something very shrewd
and in the interests of his paper, by inducing us