The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1892-05-28
Answer to Open Letter,

The DALLEs, May 27. 1892.
II. G. Coe, Esq,
Hood Rsver, Oregon.
DEAR SIR:-I have read your open letter
of the 25th inst, published In the Daily
TIMEs- MoUNTAINEER of this date, in
terrogating me relative to certain
| matters pertaining to the county bust
ness. The spirit of the letter is mani
tested in the manner of interrogatlng me,
but am nevertheless pleased to answer
these and all other questions touching my
administration of the county affairs.
In answer to your first question, de-
sire to say: The, county court in their pub.
ilshed notices for proposals for the care OF
the poor always reserve the right to reject
any and all bids The care of the county
poor is one of the most important duties
they have to perform. 1t IS the duty of the
county court not only to see that this SER
vice is performed for an economical price;
but to see and know that these helpless
dependents are properly cared for. The
people of Wasco county cannot afford to
have insufficient accommodations tor their
unfortunate poor for the purpose of saving a
few mills. This question appears to be
uppermost in your mind. A few years
since the county court had pr oposal from
Hood River to take care of the county poor.
The court after mature deliberation and
thorough investigations concluded that the
poor could not be properly taken care of for
the price and at the place proposed, and re.
jected the offer. Bonds were offered for the
faithful performance of the contract; but
had the service not been properly made,
whilst the county might recover, the un.
fortunate patients would not have been ben.
fitted thereby.
Answering your second question 1 would
say: Petitions of every kind presented to
the court have always received careful con.
sideratlon. In the appointment of officers
OF the county the taxpayers, and not the
petitioners, hold the court responsible for
the efficiency of their appointees. In the
appointment of Captain Dukes, of Hood
River, as road supervisor, it was not the in.
tentlon OF the court to throw dIscredlt upon |
the gentleman whom you had recommended |
Tor that position, and can unhesitatingly |
say, on behalf of the commissioners as well |
,s myself, that we have never made an ap.
oointment without first trying to ascertain
the applicant was competent and the
most suitable person for the position ap-
'lied for. Private individuals" receive
he same consideration at our hands.
whether they appear in person or on petit
ion. This question we submit to the vot.
rs of Hood River, and if in the appoint
nent of Captain Dukes we have made a
Mistake we can assure them that 1t was
merely an error of judgment, and not
through the influence of any certain favorite,
5 your letter would suggest.
Answering your third question can only
ay: Taxes during the present admInistra-
on have been no heavier than for many
ears proceeding, Notwithstanding the fact
rat large portion of the county has been
nd lawful expenses have not proportionatly
In fact, the number of terms
the circuit court have been increased, the
mount of business in that court has largely
creased, and the necessary expenses of the
unity, connected with the holding of cir.
lit court, have, therefore, been far greater
lrlng my administration. Under the pres
It state administration we are compelled
pay the state 10 mills, and this year we
we very properly, as we view the matter,
Vied 2 mills for road purposes. When
ok charge of the Office found the county
debt In the sum of S62, 900, over and
owe available assets. The debt OF the
unity has been decreased, during my term
Office, as is shown In the official state.
'nts rendered by the county clerk, sheriff
treasurer. and published in all of the
lnty for the information of taxpayers,
ich shows that the financial condition of
} county Is better than when took
Irge.
N answer to your fourth question: The
ebtedness of the county at the time I