The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1899-08-05
WAS THEkE A BOND?

The HOOD R1ver Glacier Still Insists
that the Hood River Lum bering Co.
had valid lease of Hood River as q
public highway at tie time an order
was made by the county court annull.
ing their lease. 1t says in it's issue Of
the 18th "Their lease was properly
filed with the county court" and draws
conclusions from this statement that
it was necessary for the county court
to proceed to condemn their lands
and declare the river public
highway.
No doubt the Glacier thinks it is
correct in stating bond was filed by
the company, but the records of the
county court do not bear out the state
ment. In fact they deny that a bond
was ever filed. The following entry
appears in book &C." page 622, county
court journal, after giving late, Sept.
12.189S. and setting up the title of the
matter under consideration, ''Tbe
matter OF the lease of Hood River
and stating the parties appearing for
the county and for the Hood river
Lumberiny Co:
1.-The court bavirg examined the
record. and 6es Of said county, and
being fully advised thereof, finds as
follows: That on the 18th day OF
January, 1896, an agreement was made
and entered into between Wasco
county, party of the first part, and the
Hood River LAUNDERING Co.. a corpora
tion. party of the second part. wherein
the party of the first part leased TO the
party Of the second part, for term of
so years, the stream of Hood river,
east, west and middle forks, as all de-
scribed in contract of lease of said
date, reference to which, for the par.
ticulsr time thereof, Is hereby made,
and also the record thereof in the
commissioners journal of said county.
That as condition precedent to said
lease the county required u, said party
of the second part to give bond in
the sum of $500 to be approved by
said court conditional for the faith
full performance of the conditions Of
said lease and the covenants and agree.
ments thereof. on the party of the
second part. That said party never
gave said bond as required or at all,
and no bond was ever received or ap-
proved by said court"
This entry in she court journal cer-
tainly Is evidence that there was never
bond filed by the Hood River Lum-
beriDg company, and there being no
bond filed, the provisions OF the lease
and contract were void. in fact there
was no lease, for bond duly executed
aud properly approved by the county
court was necessary before the lease
could be made operative.
The Glacier makes another conten-
tion that is as faulty as the one that
there was bond fled. 1t is that the
.'appeal was necessarily defended by
the county" and that "the Lost Lake
Lumbering Co.. being private cor.
poration, could not condemn private
property" This the Lost Lake Lum.
boring Co. or any other company could
have done had it secured q lease from
the county court of the river, under
the provisions of the act of February
%. 1889, and the river had been de-
clared public highway by the county
court, which lease it could haye se-
cured on proper application, since there
ws no valid lease of the river. This
act provides that any corporation OBJ
tanning lease of a stream that has
been declared a public highway, be.
comes public carrier and may, by
due process of law, condemn private
property for its necessary use.
Throughout this entire controversy
the Glacier has displayed lack of in
formation that compares with its as.
sersion that the Hood River Lumber
ing Co. filed a bond. 1t says "the
county court instituted proceedings to
make Hood river public highway on
the petition of over 100 citizens of
Wasco county, and the court could not
ignore this petition" The county
court never instituted any such pro-
ceedings whatever. What it. did was
TO issue an order on September IL,
1898, terminating the alleged lease of
the Hood River LAUNDERING Co. Then
on December 5, 1898, the court ap-
pointed three viewers, Messrs, S. L.
Brooks. G. A. Liebe and G. M. Miller
to view and aDpraise damages to be
paid the Hood River Lumbering Co for
the use of certain property belonging
to it and to be used for the opening Of
Hood river as public highway.
These viewers made their report on
December 20, 1898, assessing the
damages at S2.04O. and on that date the
court made an order ratifying the re.
port of the viewers and condemning the
property. From this order
the Hood River company appealed. 1t
was an order that should not have been
made, rs was shown by recent decis-
SION of the supreme court, which is
substantially that private property
cannot be condemned except by due
process of law. Hence there was no
action begun by the county court to
declare the river a highway, but an
order to condemn property. The
county court is not called on to insti- |
sute proceedings to declare q stream a |
public highway. 1t can do so by order,
,no then lease 1t to an individual or |
whose duty it then be-
comes to make it public highway,
and If any expense is required to make
il such it must be born by the parties
leasing, not by the county.
"What are you going to do with the |
Philippines unless you whip the ma.
ives into subsection and then make a |
United States possession of them?"
.sks the radical imperialist. Simply
live them their liberty; let them es.
ablish republican form ofgovern-
nent, and tell the nations of the world
o keep hands off until they are capable
+ protecting themselves. By so doing
re would gain their friendship and
ontrol their trade, but so long as we
eep on shooting them we will have