Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 12, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 June 1908 — CAN’T GET OVER IT [ARTICLE]

CAN’T GET OVER IT

Republican Is Still Angry About Hartseli Taxes. DON’T LIKE TAX-DOD6IN6 EXPOSURE And Perhaps There Is a Reason for It, a Sort of Fellow-Feeling, As It Were.

The Republican is still howling about The Democrat’s exposure of the late Dr. Hartseli estate being placed on the tax duplicate for 1906-7 for some $17,000 that the doctor, while living had “forgotten” to list, and by the result of which the county treasury was enriched some S6OO, or enough to pay the county assessor’s salary for a full year. -It rants about raking up a dead man’s bones, etc. Well, the good book teaches us that there is punishment for wrong-doing after death, though perhaps the syndicate editors of the Republican never got far enough along in reading tlie scriptures to know this, but the fact that the action above noted was taken and duly reported by The Democrat as a matter of news, which its readers and the public generally had a right to know about, proves that the good book is again correct. Sometimes many of the good or bad deeds of a man’s are not known until he has passed away. Had Dr. Hartseli lived he could have no doubt as successfully covered up his wealth and escaped his just share of the burdens of government now as he evidently had done in the past. The fact of the exposure having been made in his case may deter others from following a like example, when they come to realize that there is punishment after this life is ended for the tax-dodger as well as other wrong doers. Dr. Hartseli was no worse. probably than many others, yet in his case there were no children or near relatives or friends to leave his money to, and the stealings from the people of this city, county and state—for that is what tax-dodging is—would benefit no one whom he cared an iota for. The evasion of taxes in his case was too evident, too plain, to justify any defense or attempt at defense, and those who try to defend the evasion only make themselves ridiculous. And now a word about the personal allusions of the Republican to the editor of The Democrat: It says we gave in oar personal property for assessment at $660 in 1906, $570 in 1907 and $565 in 1908. Correct. But it is not true that in either of those years we did not also give in several hundred dollars in accounts due, while the Republican nor Journal reported one penny as due thein from any source whatever, and we personally know that they each had several hundred dollars due them. Neither did they give in any cash on hand or on deposit, yet that they did have some money in banks we have a very good reason to believe. The Democrat’s linotype was not put in until about March 10, 1908, and therefore was not subject to taxation thin year. But let’s see what Clarkey’s assessment was for 1906 (we will say something later about this 1906 assessment) and 1907 when his $1,500 Junior linotype was included in the assessment: For 1906, $675 £;i -only sls more than The Democrat’s assessment with no $1,500 linotype! For 1907, $575 —only $5 more than The Demoorat, and still we had no $1,600 linotype. Not a dollar was due him from any source whatever • during either of these years, and neither did he have a dollar on hand or on deposit. Now about the 1906 assessment. The Republican says: to contradict, and we have the county assessor’s records to maintain our statement, the falsehood published about the valuation Editor Leslie Clark placed on his Junior Linotype machine. The Democrat said he placed it for assessment at SIOO, when he placed it at S3OO in 1906 and at S2OO in 1907. Any person who cares to ascertain about the “truth and veracity” of the editor of the Democrat can do so at the county, auditor’s office. His falsehoods are of record." * ' ? Yes, that’s partially true, S3OO. But it was “given, in” for SBOO after the assessor fonnd out that the owner had deceived him as to its value and be went back to him and *' '1 v % / '* rf 3” u, *.

It was raised to S3OO from $100! And inadvertently this raise of S2OO came about through us, too. Here’s the true story, which the assessor will fully substantiate: The assessor called to assess The Democrat in 1906 and, in the list of printed questions, asked it we had any typesetting machines. ( We replied, “No.” Said they were too costly and we couldn’t afford one yet. “Why,’ said h 6, “what do they costT*’ “Well,” we replied, “the Junior machine the Journal has cost SISOO, and a standard machine costs about $3,500.” “Are you positive of this?” he asked. “Certainly. Why, the Journal’s machine is now mortgaged for $1,250 and Clark paid $250 down, which you can substantiate by the mortgage records.” “Well, then, he deliberately lied to me about its value, aDd I am going right down to see him.” “What,” we asked, “have you assessed the Journal?” “Yes.” “What did Clark give the machine in at?” “One hundred dollars.” “Well,” we replied, “if you go back there Clark will say we told you what it was worth, and we had no thought of his linotype when you asked us if we had any typesetting machines, and we don’t want to be blamed for something we did not intentionally do.” “Well, I am going back I did not know they were worth so much as that, and the assessment must be raised.” _____ And the assessor did go back and the assessment was raised to S3OO, still but one-fifth the machine’s cost. And we got the blame for it, too, and Clarkey was as mad as a wet hen at us, for he had to pay some $7 more taxes for 1906 than he intended to when he made oath to the actual value of his property that year. Here, again. The Democrat? though inadvertently, wsb directly responsible for the payment into the county treasury of a few dollars that was sought to be evaded. But the taxpayers of Jasper county didn’t lose a penny by our inadvertently exposing the Ethiopian in the Journal’s woodpile, did they? Just score another for “The Taxpayers’ Friend,” please. The original assessment sheet in the auditor's office plainly shows where the assessor erased the figure “1” ami substituted a figure “3.” Yes, look it up, and then sav who is the liar.

The Republican article bears the ear-marks of the $75-a»month partner of the syndicate ownership of the Republican, he of the “savory" reputation jvho was “persuaded" some years ago to leave Rensselaer by members of his own political party, and who, it was currently reported, faithfully promised never to locate in Rensselaer again if they would not prosecute him. He has had to “go away back and sit down” since the “consolidation” and the position has not been a pleasing one to him by any means. Therefore, evidently taking advantage of the military editor's absence, whose own bump of egotism is most abnormally developed, and who was away shooting up government powder and gaining fame and glory on a bloodless field of carnage, he siezed his long idle pen and proceeded to give vent to the pent up gall of months that had been hankering like a festering sore in his vengeful breast. As to where we got all that money to buy—or “lease” rather, as practically all, and we do not know but all, linotypes are put out on what 1b called the rental plan of so much for the first year with privilege of returning machine at end of year, continuing the lease or buying with first year’s rental applied on purchase price—and other expenses incurred, which seema to be another thorn in the Republican’s side, we will say very kindly that we don’t know whether it is any of the Republican’s business or the public’s. We did not have it March 1 or it would have been listed. We came by it honestly and did not acquire it by gambling on racing pools nor in playing poker. The Democrat’s -private affairs are not accountable to the Republican nor the public. Perhaps we may have borrowed it also, as our credit is very, good and we have never experienced any trouble whatever in raising a little “dust” when it was necessary, and we do not say this boastingly, either. , The fact is, The Democrat has alwava been carefully and econom-

ically managed, its editor doesn't ‘‘bet on the ponies,’’ play poker or run after the Women, and while we know It is gall and wormwood to the Republican to see it continually forging ahead, yet its mechanieal improvements have, been made as its growing business justified and it has been careful not to become “overloaded.” It pays its bills promptly and discounts most of them. It has no syndicate of political stockholders to prey upon its resourses or live off its legitimate though limited Income. But if the curiosity of the Republican is so greatly aroused we will state that since March 1> this office has taken in more than SI,BOO in cash, much of which was on subscription, too. New subscriptions and renewals have almost rained in upon us. Has the Republican done as well? Continuing the Republican asserts that we gave a chattel mortgage to the First National Bank March 4, last for SSOO. Correct. But perhaps this is of as much concern to the public as it would be for The Democrat to publish that one of the syndicate owners of the Republican gave a mortgage about a year ago for $2,500 to Geo. E. Marshall and two mortgages, one of $2,500 and one of $3,500 to Lillie E. Marshall. We will pay off our mortgage and no doubt he will pay all of his, so we see no occasion for rushing into print about either. We do not believe the public has much curiosity to know' about what property the poor editor has, but since the Republican thinks otherwise we will herewith give the complete assessment of Healey & Clark, Geo. H. Healey, Leslie Clark and F. E. Babcock for the year 1908, as shown by the assessor’s books at the court house: Healey & Clark et al.—Printing office equipment SI,OOO. (This is the equipment of the two offices, the Republican and Journal which had been consolidated, and not a dollar was on hand or on deposit and not a dollar was due them any source as shown by the assessment sheet.) And at the March term of Commissioners’ Court, which convened March 2, $148.55 was allowed them. (See Com. Record 13, page 264.) As claims must be filed five days before the commissioners meet this sum must have been due them on March 1. Don’t you think so? And there were many other accounts due them also, no doubt. Leslie Clark Household furniture SSO, 1 sewing machine $5, one watch $5; total S6O. (Poor Clarkey! Only S6O since the consolidation, and not a dollar due him from any source whatever.) George H. Healey Household furniture S3O, 1 piano SSO, 1 coy

$25; total $lO5. j F. E. Babcock— > All accounts .‘...5500.00 ' From the sum of above credits : I claim a deduction of the amount of my bona fide indebtedness, as 1 follows: ! Chicago Newspaper Union.. $ 75.00 Moser Paper Co., . ......... 75.00 * E. W. Blatchford 35.00 : First National Bank 250.00 Mergenthaler Linotype C 0.,. . 50.00 ; J. W. Williams 25.00 $510.00 Money on hand or on dep.. .$ 50.00 Printing outfit and fixtures. . 400.00 Household goods 50.00 Poultry 10.00 1 Sewing Machine........ 6.00 Watches and clocks, 4..... 20.00 Number of cattle (1 cow).. 25.00 12 bu. potatoes 5,00 Grand total ....$565.00 Now we believe Bro. Healey keeps quite a number of chickens and there is a blank in the assessment sheet for poultry. We believe he and other members of his family carry gold watches, yet they are only conspicuous by their absence on his assessment sheet. We also believe he has a clock in his home, although not reported. But a short time after March 1, 1908, in a settlement made with The Democrat for a balance due us on exchange sale advertising, etc., some $23, he asked for a blank check to pay the amount, and stated that either a First National or the State Bank check would do, and gave the check on the former bank and it was duly honored on presentation. Still not a dollar was on hand or on deposit March 1 according to his assessment sheet! Clarkey has for several years been dabbling in the bee business, and has boasted some of his “apairy.” Bees should be Usted at SI.OO per stand or swarnr While he has had a score or more of stands for several years, not a one appears on his assessment sheet. This ‘'omission” probably amonnts to several hundred dollars for the eight or ten years they have been ! “forgotten.” We also believe other members of his family carry gold watches, and that he has a clock in ’ his home, yet one would never learn of the fact from his assessment sheet. '

All this property Is taxable and should be given In under the headings provided for it on the assess-; ment sheet. The reference to a temporary employe of this paper is of a low, mean and contemptible order of attack and classes the writer where he very properly belongs. The Democrat has never attacked or referred in an unfriendly way to any employe of the Republican, though it could have truthfully said things many times that would not have reflected much credit to them. The Republican's tactics are beneath the notice of all self-respecting people. No outsiders have a dollar invested in The Democrat and no one but the writer of this article has any trol over its columns. The Democrat’s “glass house” is built of enduring granite, thank you, and the “spit-balls” fired at it from the Republican’s blow-gun fall harmlessly from its walls. Fortified in its statements by facts and figures and the county records, it defies the assaults of this syndicate pop-gun. '