Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1883-05-24


the test and hence the people are called
upon to vote under it before the test is
made, and in consequence Of a removal is
voted, leave the test Of its validity to be
made afterwards by the party or parties
ag-ricvod, the expense of defending which
contest will have to be borne by the tax
payers Of the county, unless Moscow
pays them, an event that Is not
likely to happen. The foregoing is
as near the true history of this relocation
act as could well be embodied in the
space We have occupied in writing it, and
the voters must judge wherein lies the
origin and growth Of this issue, and whcth-
cr or not it originated in desire to ben
eft the people of the whole county, or in
desire to build up small portion of
the people Of the county at the expense
of the great majority. To us it seems
that the covert manner in which it was
precipitated upon the people Of the county
by its advocates is enough to condemn it
in the opinion of all honorable citizens
But aside from the manner of its origin
growth, we are aware there are other con
siderations that require attention and to
these We propose 70 direct the thought
of the voters of the county; and, frt,
let ia consider the question of the prob
ability of our soon becoming part of
the State or Territory of Washington
We all stood together and elected Del
egate in Congress for the purpose of Sc
curing this boon, who, az ye. has not been
upon the floor Of Congress to represent
us, he could only, as an outsider, assist
Mr.. Brcnts, which Mr. Bren,s says
he did faithfully. Mr. Brcnts was also
reelected upon the annexation issue and
now each of these delegates have two
years, in two sessions of congress to Jointly
work for this end, without the opposition
of any other delegate from either Wash
ington or Idaho, as in former years.
The prominent barriers which have here
toforc existed against the union of North
Idaho and Washington have been broken
down and the public sentiment of South
Idaho greatly changed in favor of our an
ncxation to Washington as shown in the
vote given to Singiser as against Ainslic,
and the population of the territories Of
both Washington and North Idaho is 80
rapidly increasing that statehood for
Washington and North Idaho combined
cannot long be denied, and certainly We
to-day are nearer our coveted alliance
with Washington than when the people
refused to endorse division of the county
until annexation takes place. If we
then said it was TO our interest to wait
for future division so as to combine
with part of Washington, and re-organ-
ize county boundaries better suited to
the convenience Of the people, we should
wait now for the same reason. We do
not want it, and it would not be for the
best interest Of the people to now disturb
establish county seats and place them at
places that might not be at all convenient
when the reorganization of the county
boundaries after annexation take place,
any more than it is good policy to divi,
counties or re-organize county bounlaries
before ANNEXATION. The same rule that
would apply in the one case, will apply
in the other with equal force. The tax
payers say now, We do not feel able to
pay the taxes Of two counties instead of
one, and we think they are right. Why
then should you pay the additional taxes
incident to the removal of a county-scat
and the erection of new county buildings
But some say Moscow is to furnish the
county buildings. The provision of the
act says if they win they shall deposite
the full value Of the present county build
ings owned or occupied by the county,
the money of which shall be used by the
commissioners in erecting the Others at
Moscow Now Moscow is place, but it
has no incorporation, has no town gov
crnmcst, against whom a claim can be
enforced for the payment Of this
money, in ease they fail to deposit after
the election. The town has no defined
limits and the county would not know
whom to sue as citizens Of the town, in
case Of failure to subcribe and pay
US per the act. Again, who is to deter
mine the cash value of the property in
lieu Of that the citizens of Moscow are to
put up for; according to McConnelrs
illustrated circular he claims that all the
county owns in Lewiston is the old jail
building and the annual rental price of
the old court house building which he
would make you believe would not re-
qnire deposite of more than 1900.
Now, where is the balance of the money
10 come from unless from the tax payers
OF the county to build good court house
and Jail at Moscow, rs convenient and
commodious as the court house We now
occupy here in Lewiston? Surely Mos
COW will claim that she is not obliged to
deposite any more money than Neon
nell has intimated is the value of the
county buildings here. Before the coun-
ty commissioners made the contingent
bargain tor the present court house, the
county paid near $500 per year in rents,
and had comparatively poor acconmoda-
tions, Now she gets a eommodious
court house, sheriifs office, clerks office, |
auditors office, probate judges office, dis |
trict judges suit Of rooms, and two jury
rooms, all under one roof for 1925 per
annum, with plenty of yard and out
buildings, and ut the expiration of ) |