The sea coast echo. [volume] (Bay Saint Louis, Miss.) 1892-current, 1921-04-16
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Editor Sea Coast Echo:

Editor Sea Coast Echo:
Our attention has been directed to
certain statements in your report OF
the mass meeting held at the court
house on the 7th, instant, which we
cannot permit to go unchallenged.
For instance, it is charged that a
committee of gentlemen represent
ing an association recently formed
in Bay st. Louis" ,(meaning, of
course, The Tax Payers Protective
League,) has been journeying to
Jackson interviewing the Tax Com
mission and misrepresenting condlt-
ions in Hancock County, and has
made it appear to the commission
that our assessments are low, etc.,
and it is assumed that this commit
tee or body will advocate greater
and heavier assessment"
These statements evidently refer
to the visit of the writer and Mr.. j.
n. Wisner to Jackson to lay before
the Tax Commission the resolutions
adopted by the mass meeting held by
the Taxpayers League In the w. 0.
w. Hall on the 10th of March and
the petitions signed by several hum
dred of our citizens requesting the
commission to appoint some suitable
and competent party to make an es-
innate of the merchantable timber in
Hancock County for the sole purpose
of ascertaining whether or not any
of this timber is escaping taxation,
as has often been charged in the
past. AS the purpose of this visit,
as well as the resolutions and petit
tions mentioned, was given wide
publicity both in the press and other
wise, we are forced to the conclusion
that you made these statements ad
visedly and with full knowledge of
the facts. Therefore, We desire to
call attention to what is perhaps al
ready we'll known to great majority
of our citizens that we made but one
trip to Jackson and presented but
the one question to the Tax Commis
sion, and any statement or inslnua-
ton to the contrary is simply and
unqualifiedly false.
The implication that We both made
more than one trip to Jackson has
the appearance, at least, of an eff
fort to convey the impression that
the two trips by the writer in con-
nection with the controversy over
the raise in telephone rates were in
reality for the purpose of interview
ing the Tax Commission. Whatever
the purpose of this statement, the
language is confusing and mislead-
ing. These visits had nothing what
ever to do with the matters before
the Tax Commission, and the only
had by the writer with
any member of the commission dur
ing either of these visits was mo-
conversation with the chair
man at an accidental meeting on the |
streets of Jackson.
In view of the fact that the writer
called in person at your office and
fully explained the purpose of his |
later visits to Jackson and requested |
you to publish as matter of infor-
nation to telephone subscribers the
resolutions adopted by the commit
tee handling the rate controversy,
we are again forced to believe that
you made this statement advisedly
and with full knowledge of the facts.
it occurs to us that an ex-
pEdudCiOU IiOili you Is Ill VI IoCI.
We also call on you to point out
one single instance where the Tax
Payers League or any member there
of has misrepresented any fact rela-
tive to conditions in Hancock coun-
ty.
We note that you have not atten-
ded any of the meetings held by the
league, and have failed to carry any
of at least two of them in
the columns of your paper. 1t was,
of course, your privilege to ignore
these meetings, if you so desired, but
it occurs to us that the functions of
a newspaper is to give its readers all
the legitimate news, and your pres
ence at these meetings would have
given you first hand knowledge of
the purpose and work of the league,
which has been so grossly misrepres
ented, and which just now appears
to be giving some people great
deal of worry.
In conclusion we must not only re-
quest but demand that you give this
statement the same publicity that
you gave to the erroneous statements
to which We have referred.
Respectfully,
w. w. STOCKSTILL,
Bay st. Louis, Miss.