The Editorial Association's Position
This letter is printed in Oregon Exchanges not with a view of continuing a controversy, but because it sets forth certain points of Oregon law that are not too clearly understood by the craft in general.
To the Editor of Oregon Exchanges:
In a letter appearing in your December issue Will J. Hayner, editor of the Sutherlin Sun, takes to task the State Editorial association, especially the legislative committees thereof. He criticizes the legislative committee for not repealing laws which exist only in Mr. Hayner's own imagination and criticizes the association for not proposing laws which it has already proposed and some of which have been enacted into law.
Mr. Hayner says that a paper like his cannot get the publication of teachers' notices because the law states that they must be published in the two papers of largest circulation in- the county. There is no such law and I doubt if there ever was such a law.
Mr. Hayner says: "The provision of the law which provides that all the county patronage shall go to the two papers of opposite political affiliations having the largest circulations is unfair." There is no law in this state providing that county patronage shall be given out as Mr. Hayner states. There is a law that says that the tax list and proceedings of the county court shall be published in the papers of largest circulation, but nothing is said of political affiliations.
Mr. Haynor says; "The provision of the law which provides that all other work which should be divided among the various printers of the county, or awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, are all turned over to the papers with the alleged largest circulation." Such may be the case in
Mr. Hayner's county, but there is no law making that condition compulsory. Mr. Hayner says: "* * * Publishers of the county dailies and big town weeklies got together at a meeting from which the small town publishers were excluded and entered into an agreement whereby print paper was to be purchased in carload lots and distributed * * * to those publishers who are in on the deal."
I personally know 'that Mr. Hayner had an opportunity to get in on the carlot paper deal. The only reason he couldn't get the paper was because he couldn't use the size of which the car was made up. It isn't the fault of the editorial association that Mr. Hayner runs a five-column paper. Besides, this paper deal was not handled by the association.
This so-called "deal" was open and above board and all the papers of the state received circulars urging them to get in. My paper did not get
