custom ad
OpinionJanuary 13, 1994

To the Editor: I am intrigued. In your newspaper of Dec. 27th, a letter to the editor from John L. Oliver, Jr. was headlined "Highway Commissioner suggests newspaper throw State Auditor's legal opinions in trash can". Mr. Oliver attacked your paper for printing State Auditor Margaret Kelly's report of ten school districts violating the constitution by raising property taxes without a vote of the people. ...

Larry Rohrbach

To the Editor:

I am intrigued. In your newspaper of Dec. 27th, a letter to the editor from John L. Oliver, Jr. was headlined "Highway Commissioner suggests newspaper throw State Auditor's legal opinions in trash can".

Mr. Oliver attacked your paper for printing State Auditor Margaret Kelly's report of ten school districts violating the constitution by raising property taxes without a vote of the people. His line of reasoning was that because Auditor Kelly is not an attorney her opinion isn't worth reporting.

What's intriguing is that the letter carefully avoided discussing the merits of the constitutional question but instead attacks the person making the decision. The traditional Latin term for this common fallacy of logic is "argumentum ad hominem" meaning attack the man. This fallacy is so common and well known that kids in high school courses and college general education courses memorize it as I did years ago. It is indeed intriguing that Mr. Oliver, a law school graduate and presumedly trained in logic, would use it. Using the same logic, your paper should throw in the trash can any opinions offered by Mr. Oliver about state highways, even though he is a member of the highway commission. After all, he is not an engineer trained in highway construction but is an attorney.

While I make no unfounded assumptions about why Mr. Oliver would "attack the person" rather than argue the question involved, I've noticed that it is often used when the other side has the better of the argument.

The letter also claims that the State Auditor should only audit accounts and has no duty to determine the proper rate of tax levies. It refers only to "Chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri". In fact, Chapter 137.073(6) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (1993 Supp) require the State Auditor to advise taxing authorities and the public if tax rates are in accordance with Missouri law.

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

It seems obvious that Auditor Kelly is doing her duty and that your paper was functioning as a free press should in informing the public of her advice.

For my part, I'm very thankful Auditor Kelly is a state official with the courage to speak out for the constitutional right of Missourians to vote on property tax increases.

Larry Rohrbach

Missouri Senate

Sixth District

California, Mo.

Advertisement

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!