Weston weekly leader. [volume] (Weston, Umatilla County, Or.) 1878-189?, 1880-12-04
have been working on for the last nine

ana NOlQ t1at every sfOtcf OI tUl6 county
has right to say what he considers
right and just, no matter what locality
he may reside. in. As a citizen of this
county, and believing that every persons
rights should be respected, / deemed it
my duty to stand by the whole people
anL divide this county in manner that
that would meet with the approval of the
majority, and will here say that I con-
slider that was the mouth piece of the
whole county and not as w, Steen & Co.
would have it.
Had Mr.. Steen been as ready to do
justice as he was to exact it our county
would have been divided into three coun-
ties, but his course was contrary to the
interests of the people. He often said to
me that unless the county was divided
on the lines selected before the June
election that he wanted no division at
all.
Mr.. Wilson, Mr.. Pennington and my
self agreed upon what We considered a
fair division and had II. B. 50 drawn MP
| and introduced for the formation Of Wise
and Coal counties. All three agreed to
see it through and it was as much Will
sons bill as mine. but by some means
Steen captured Wilson and got him to
introduce H. B. 81. The two bills were
read second time and referred to the
committee on counties; then Steen put
il his work on the committee, trying to
make them believe that to divide on his
lines would make republican county !;
Wilson then went back on II. B. 50 and
helped Steen. By this move they de-
feated division and are alone to blame.
believe the lines as stated in III. B.
50 are the best that could be found to do
justice to all parts of the county, It
gave us % townships Of surveyed land
and at least II townships of unsurveyed
timber lands, which will be very valua-
BILE. 1t also gave Wise county all of
the best farming lands in the county
and more than both of the other two
counties.
! In conclusion I will say that I am
alone responsible for the conrse I took
and believe that l should have aecomp-
lished division had in not been for
Steer.
1 Leaving the matter for the citizens Of
this county to determine,
l am, Yours Resp'y,
7. j. KELLY.
The above extraordinary effusion ''pur.
porting to have been written" by the
Hon. P. ]. Kelly calls for a few remarks,
simply because the said Kelly has been
: member OF the Legislature. The first
} paragraph accuses the 1885, W., Steen
d Co. of being small potatoes. If this is
meant to be contemptuous, the 1885
5 voters can sympathise with each other in
r their degradation; but if intended for
\ praise, the 1885 must certainly feel like
3 laughing. But if Mr.. Kelly means that
they are ''smah potatoes" planted for the
= election two years hence, they would nat
Y urally be expected to bring forth larg,
Y numerical yield by that time.
}, The LEADER has hot vill,fied and at
0 tackled ''some of our best citizens" ant
We thus publicly invite Mr.. Kelly to Civ.
= : their names.
!. Whether Mr.. Kelly was in the "Ring'
e or simply the tool of it, would be irnma
r terisl to the Ring" and everyone else.
!. Can Mr. Kelly really be so "green" al
u to claim he was the "mouthpiece of tn,
whole county, when he worked ane
|. | voted against the wishes of 1885 of it
It citizens, expressed by petition
n Nov We wish to ask q few questions
u lst. Did not Mr.. Kelly, during tn
5. campaign, promise at every speaking thu
S. he would be governed by the citizens a
e to Division, and that by petition was tb
'r ''only and right" way to accomplish itl
I'd. Then what right had he, withou
any petitions beirg presented, to procee
to divide Umatilla county as per agre,
,e ment with Wilson and Pennington?
re- 3d. What right had he to fix line
:. :. for division, after pledging himself t
$. do nothing except on petitionl
re 4th. Why did he not work for tn
I'd lines petitionsd for to form Knox Co
* * when supported by the largest petition
40 " of l2S59
IN 5th. Why did he vote not to reconsi,
be er his own bill for division, thus himse
or aiding to etfectually crush division of an
om u, kindf
NJ 9th. Why did member of the Le
on islature rise in his place and say that /
m would vote against Division of Umatil
n: Co., because both members Wilson ar
.n Kelly were not in favor of dividingi
7th. Why did the Hon. p J. Kel
~ state in the House that he was willing
'd- 60 back to his constituents without al
20 divisionl
~ Now if any one can answer these que
tions to clear Mr. Kelly we will be 81.