Jasper County Democrat, Volume 2, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 August 1899 — Page 4 Advertisements Column 3 [ADVERTISEMENT]

The experts at work on the records in Hancock county—a democratic county, by the way, where the “court house ring” has been a law all unto itself for years, much the same as the republican ring in this county has been—have completed their investigation of the auditor’s office, and find that the present auditor is short in his accounts 94,600, and his predecessor is short 91,500.

The Barnacle says that in our comparison of circulation, published last week, that we “magnified” the circulation of The Democrat to “magnificient proportions” and reduced that of “it”— the Barnacle —below what it really is. We will admit that The Democrat has a circulation of “magnificient proportions” in the country districts of Jasper county, but it needs no magnifying process to prove this fact, an inquiry of the various postmasters of the county or an inspection of The Democrat’s mailing list will prove the truth of our statement. In regard to the Barnacle’s circulation, our figures were obtained from prominent democrats of well known veracity in the localities named. If we did belittle the circulation of the Barnacle, the fact can be easily proven by that “paper,” by its publishing the names of all its subscribers at the postoffices cited. We will further add that we defy the Barnacle to name 25 democrats in Jasper county, outside of Rensselaer, who are bonafide subscribers to that sheet, and we do not believe it can name that number by including Rensselaer.

’ Just why anyone will stoop to such low, bare-faced falsehoods to injure a competitor as does the Journal editor is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary man. Now he accuses us of charging the trustee of Carpenter tp., $33 for publishing his report for 1897 while our successors charged but S2O for the 1898 report ; “although the latter report contained a good deal more than the $33 one;” that we charged just about double for a ! less amount of work than our suc- ■ cessors. The price charged Mr. , Lamborn was one agreed upon when his first report was published some years ago, and was a little less than one-half the regular legal rate. His report up to last year included his itemized service ! account —which it should —and was the largest and most complete I report published by any trustee in the county, and $33 for his 1897 report was a lower price, considering its length, than ever made by either of the three republican papers of Rensselaer for like reports, iWe know nothing about the price agreed upon by our successors. They might have agreed to do the work free gratis, or have got SIOO for it for all we know, but we do know that we charged exactly the price agreed upon and that this •price was also a trifle less than one-half the regular legal rates for ! snch publications. We also know | that the report of 1897 contained ' the itemized service account of i said trustee, which alone occupied [ one-half column, and that the '9B ' service account was simply given at $272 —no doubt by the trustee’s ' orders —and occupied exactly one • line in the report, and the whole ’97 report was much larger, as published in full, which the law requires, than was the one as published in 1898 Furthermore, we have, right in our possession copies of the two reports which proves the above statements. So much for another vain attempt to down The Democrat.

It is indeed remarkable how great men will differ on momentous questions. Now the liveried cigarette sign, at present expounds iug law through the columns of thsr Rensselaer Apologist, says that the officers themselves are the sole judges of where they shall place the advertising required to be done under the new reform laws. Right on the heels of the opinion of this eminent legal authority comes an opinion by Attorney-General Taylor which is diametrically opposed to this decision. The AttorneyGeneral says: “The law specifically provides for publishing certain kinds of notices in Twos newspapers, and in every case the act provides that it ‘shall be published * * * in each of TWO LEADING newspapers of general circulation printed and published in the county, if such there be, representing respectively the two political parties casting the highest number of votes in such county at the last preceding general election.’ The above statute does not requite that such advertisement shall be made at the county seat. * • * One of the publications must be in a REPUBLICAN papier and the other in a democratic paper. Those papers Mubt be the leaping PERS m the county. They need not be in the county seat ♦ • • but