The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1890-10-31
CHE 9eluurrat.
KRRATIC.

KRRATIC.
The Brownsville Times Is very erratle.
There Is no such thing as eonfning Il to an
Issue Of It's own creation. II set out some
time ago in very rash way by saying that
the north part of the county was taxing
the south part of the county more than Its
due proportion Of taxes. OF course the
DEMOCRAT denied this foolish statement
for the "north half Of the county" does not
nor never has Imposed tax on the "south
hall" nor on any other locality or section.
We showed that when the appropriations
were made for bridges on the Santiam the
south half of the county had one member
on the board and most Of the time ma
jori,y 9th board, The building of bridges
In count, Is not question OF locality.
The question Is, is the building of a bridge
public necessity. ltsO, Il should be built
without regard to the locality. II the court
has neglected or refused to build bridges
on Muddy or Calapooia creeks they should
be called to public account for Il, The
DKMocRAr will not b. drawn In to defend
Il by the TiNcs or anyone else. And we
say, once for all, to the TimcS, that the
DEMocRAI Is broad enough In It's con-
eeplion of its duty to the taxpayers of
Linn county to favor the construction OF
good safe bridges on al the streams of the
county. This means that We favor the
building Of bridges on the CalaPooia and
Muddy with as much earnestness as the
building of them any where else, The
7iaes does not occupy this ground for Il
has announced In Its columns that Il would
champion the interests of the ssHihcya for-
fiOa of the county, ,hus ignoring all the
other pats OF the county. And It is the
standing on this narrow platform tha
causes al the trouble and annoyance tC
which the Tirzcs finds itself subjected ir
trying to treat of this matter. 1t says In III
last issue; "As We expected when We pro
pounded the questions in last weeks Time
TO the DEMOCRAT that paper declined e
answer them" of course the Times knew
that the DENocRAr would not answe
questions to furnish II proof to sustain IL
own allegation. The Times man Is the onl,
one In the county probably that would re-
sort to such demagogy. The Times seem'
to be groveling In Cimmerian darkness a
to the rules of debate and adducing o
proof which require the one making AT
allegation t. prove It and he who denies
only rebuts the evidence Of the affirma-
tive Observing this rule we have calleS
upon the Times to prove its proposition
The Times complains that we said its edito
was down and made a ch of the records
II says It was not. Well, We were misleC
by the Tfmcs man because he had promised
his readers that he intended to investigat,
and give facts and figures "next week
Our mistake was In relying on the Time
man doing as he promised. We make al
due apologies for this error of ours anC
promise never TO be guilty of the lik,
again.
The Times says:
The DEMOCRAT says: I'll the court has
neglected TO repair bridges in the southern
part of the county, upon them must res
the blame" Here we call upon our Craw.
foriville correspondent 10 testify anc
challenge the DEMOCRAT TO refute the ties
timony. Not only can we give the follow.
ing testimony to dispute the DEMocRAr's
assertion, bat II necessary can call upon
Mack Sawyer and Norve Rice, who were
road-supeTvisors of the district in which
the bridge broke down last spring anc
crippled two women for life; II B and Ed.
Meyer who logged up the creek and many
others, TO prove that time and again the
was court notified of the dangerous condi
ton Of the bridge.
But why in the name Of common sense
do you want to dispute cur proposition fori
is Il not true that g II the souri has neglect.
cd to repair bridges In the southern part o
county upon them must rest the blamei
Why cal upon Move Rice, Mack Sawyer
or an, one else to Dispute that the court
would be to blame In such case. These
men viii not dispute the proposition. The
Times says the DEMOCRAT Is on record
OF course It is. And a record that every
right thinking man will approve Of. Our
record and position as before stated Is: The
building of bridges is not question Of 10
cality. We do not believe that jus, as many
dollars should be spent in one locality as
an another. We believe that all localities
in the county should receive appropriations
In proportion 10 their need Of bridges. The
DEMOCRAT iavcrs bridges In the north
part Of the county II needed, and favors
them in the south, east and west part like
wise II needed. The Times, not standing
on this broad platform is very unfortunate
n finding itself hamPered by such narrow
limits as IL has surrounded itself with.
Finding the Times will not discuss these
public interests except from purely sec /.
tional stand point, depending upon section
al prejudice existing, or to be created, 10
sustain it, we therefore dismiss the subject