The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1894-11-18
YOUNG'S BAY BRIDGE
MOssback Writes Another In
teresting Letter.
Mr.. WEIGHS PROPOSITION.
Gu Correspondent Docs Not Agree
With Him ON the Extension Of
AstOria's Limits.
Mr.. WEIGHS PROPOSITION
Astoria, Nov. II, 1894.

Astoria, Nov. II, 1894.
To the Editor
} have read with interest the articl,
Of James w. Welch in your issue o
today, and, while l am unable to agre,
with him as to the advisability of ex
tending the corporate limits Of thi
city, so as to take in the townsite o
Flavel, it is a pleasure to know tina
he takes enough interest in these ques
tions to exchange views with his neigh
bors upon the subject. My objections
to the proposed extension are:
First-That 1 am opposed to taking
territory into the corporate limits sim
ply for the purposes of revenue TO the
city, where said territory can derive nc
benefit from the act.
Secondly bringing territory own.
ed by non-residents within the city
limits. simply for purposes Of taxation
where such territory derives no cor
responding benefit from the act, tends
to discourage foreign capital from in
vesting in lands, or enterprises, in this
vicinity.
Third-The attempt to combine the
two projects might defeat both; and
Fourth-Because am not willing to
concede that Flayel is, at least at pres
ent, a rival of Astoria.
This city, with population of near
ly ten thousand. already has included
within its limits, sufficient of such
territory. Municipalities are created,
not for purposes Of taxation but for
purposes of local government. Taxa
ton, and the raising of revenues to
support the government, are incidental
thereto; therefore, wnen territory which
derives no benefit from the act Is in
cluded within the limits of a corporate
city, simply for purposes Of revenue,
wrong is committed, and a funda-
mental principle Of law is violated.
am a firm believer in the doctrine
that the boundaries of municipality
should be confined to such territory
only as will, in exchange for the extra
burdens imposed upon It in the way of
taxation be In some way compensated
therefor. Flavel is not a townsite, as
no plat Of 1t has ever been recorded;
1t has no population; it is. simply a
farm, and no more needs a city gov
ernment than does the territory about
Saddle Mountain. 1t is more than two
miles from the site of the proposed
bridge, and would derive no more
benefit from the building thereof, than
would property at Warrenton. Sl<ipa-
non, and other properties on the west
side of the bay If Flavel were to be
taken into the city all the country on
the west side of Young's Bay from the
Lewis and Clarke to the Pacific ocean
should also be included and to at
Tempt this, in connection with the
bridge enterprise, would jeopardize
both. We want to get foreign capital
to invest in our lands. in factories, and
other enterprises in our midst and in
his vicinity, and to impose taxation
lpon those investments, without giving
value in return therefor.
will tend to keep such capital away.
The inference might easily be drawn
from Mr.. Welch's article, that he con>
sidered Flavel already a rival to As,
.oria, or feared that IL it Is not such
already, it might become so in the near
future. l am not prepared to admit
either proposition. Without any popu-
ation, and without even a townsite
aid out and recorded, 1t certainly can
not be considered a rival to this city.
at the present time and with proper
display of energy and enterprise on the
part of our people in the future, 1t
never will be; although 1t may become
l town OF good proportiors at no dis
ant day.
I propose that we build the bridge for
he benefits that we, as a city, will
ierive therefrom, and allow the sur,
country to reap such advan-
ages as 1t may. We cannot expect to
build up our city without benefittine
,thers to some extent; although we
cap the greater part of the harvest.
'ome of the seeds will fall by the way.
'ide, and taking root in the soil, will
grow into harvest for others to reap.
Why should we care how much others
ire benefited by our act. SO long as we
rain all we seek.
promised in my last article, to give
oday some interesting data concerning
municipal ownership OF bridges. fer
les, street railways. etc. This infor.
nation comes mostly from an article
contributed to the November number
# the Cosmopolitan. by Sylvester Bax.
er, who has evidently made a careful
study of the subject. To anyone inter.
.sted in this matter and who has the
line, 1 would recommend a careful Pc
-usal Of said article; but those who.
or any reason, are unable to read II,