The record-union., 1893-02-10

that county would not invest dollar.
y. Il. Hawkins OF Woodland next adj
dressed the meeting, and said there was
not one man III hundred in Yolo County
| who was not unalterably opposed to the
change OF boundary, unless he was finan-
ciaily concerned. y olo County wanted
the boundary where nature placed it. If
manufacturers wanted the land so badly
what was to prevent them from buying
II? lie thought the true reasons for the
enthusiasm of those urging annexation
had not been given and would not be.
IaXes In Nolo were lower-why should
manufacturers desire to raise them by
anneXing the land when il could be had
cheaper as 1t now is The taxable prop
erty OF Washington was valued at over
Sl36,OOO-why not annex the whole of the
county? MIR. Hawkins then referred TO
the map of Yolo County, and dilated
upon the advantages Of that county hold
ing its water front and levees The
county of Yolo had spent thousands of
dollars on roads and levees, and it was
now proposed TO annex them to Sacra-
mento. The people OF Yolo did not want
their county cut up or its boundaries
changed. Not only the people of Yolo
but those OF Solano were opposed, and
saw danger in the project. Eighty-four
thousand dollars had been spent on the
levees and roads in twelve years. He
thought Mr.. Lubin and the others de-
sired the land to help lower the taxes of
y
OF flooding 1t 10 ease themselves.
DIR. Ross, Mayor of Woodland, also op-
posed the proposed change of boundary,
and thought such a change would threaten
the prosperity of Woodland as the
county seat and lead to dissension and
dissatisfaction. He thought the effort to
annex valuable portion of the water
front of Yolo 10 Sacramento was I'M
reasonable and unjust. He did not be-
AeVe II was to be done for philanthropic
purposes. He attributed selfish motives
TO the people OF Sacramento, believing
they wished to secure the Yolo banks
for an outlet in case of high water.
he thought, so far as the manufacturing
inducements We're concerned, it made no
difference whether the location was in
Yolo or Sacramento County. In con-
clusion, he desired to say the people of
olo County were opposed to any change,
first, because their small county did not
want to lose any of its territory, and, sec
ondly, because they believed il would re-
suit in nothing but damage to the county.
de then submitted resolutions passed
by the Board of Supervisors of Yolo
County opposing the REIMBURSEMENT of
any OF the territory of the county, and
requesting their representatives in the
Legislature TO oppose by all honorable
means any change of boundary. He also
read resolution of protest passed at a
public meeting i'll Woodland.
Rivers" said DR.. Ross, form the
best natural boundaries" and he thought
that between Sacramento and Yolo
should not be changed. He thought to do
so would be to inflict indignity upon the
people of Yolo which they did not de-
serve
Mr.. Beamer of the State Board of
| Equalization was called and said he had
not expected to take part in the discus
sion. He had, however, lived most of his
life in olo County and he had never re-
| allied that that county had any territory
which it would be advisable to dispense
with. He did not believe from what he
had learned that the people of Washing
ton desired to change their county. If
they traded in Sacramento that was Sac
ramento's good fortune. He had met a
number of people from Washington who
were opposed to annexation. Being asked
to name some of them Mr.. Beamer could
mention but three names, and a dispute
arose about these. He did not think
| there was any difficulty about the people
| of Washington reaching the county seat,
| Woodland. He thought certain parties
were over-Zealous in the movement, and
saw no reason why y olo should submit
to being sliced for the benefit of Sacra-
mento.
". a. Henley of Washington was
called and submitted petition signed by
over a hundred residents OF the town
of Washington opposing annexation. In
reply to MIR. Lubin he said over half of
them were taxpayers. He said except
at times of flood the water was so shall
low that factories would be out of the
question on the Yolo side unless a
dredger was kept constantly at work.
Mr.. May differed with Mr.. Henley
upon this point and believed there was
plenty of water there the year round.
Henley was questioned by Mr.. Brusie
regarding change of opinion in his
views of the annexation question, to
which he did not give very clear answers.
Henley was also questioned by Senator
Taylor of Marin County, in regard to the
condition OF the water at various points
in the river and at various dates, show
ing the changes in the bed of the river.
supervisor Jenkins stated that the
southern part Of this county was op-
posed to annexation, and in response to
questions gave the reason that the
county had enough levees to keep in
repair.
He did not think the Board of Super
visors favored annexation.
Mr.. Lubin asked ii some of them had
not signed the petition.
Mr.. Jenkins said none that he knew Of
Mr.. Lubin then wanted to know how
he could speak for the Board of Super
visors, and hot debate ensued between
Mr.. Lubin and MIR. Jenkins.
In reply TO Mr.. Hart, Mr. Jenkins said
the Board OF Supervisors had never
taken any official action in the matter.
he believed annexation would be q
AdlLlGA lLldu d D6ilblI 10 bulS
county. He believed with his constit-
| uency.
DIR. Dixon of Sacramento, a property
owner in the strip proposed for annexa-
ton, read an article from the Woodland
| Mat tavoring the annexation of Wash
ington.
Il. f. Leake asked if the doctor knew
that since the article was written the MGiE
had changed its stand, and was now OPP
posed to the movement.
DR.. Dixon said he did not know this,
and he proceeded with an able argument
tavoring the proposed annexation and
change of boundary, offering several
strong ana convincing arguments.
MIR. Lubln closed the argument for the
anneXatiOnists, reiterating the adyanta-
ges to result from the change OF boundary
and regretting that any OF the gentlemen
should attribute selfish motives TO Saera-
mento. He again reviewed the advanta-
ges to both the town of Washington and
tho city of Sacramento which would re-
suit ifthe proposed annexation was made.
| He referred again to the petitions signed
by most Of the business men of Sacra-
mento and the principal property owners
i'll the strip of land under discussion and
was surprised that the measure should be
opposed by any.
After Mr. Lubin's remarks the meeting
adjourned without taking any action.
RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS,