Lincoln County leader. [volume] (Toledo, Lincoln County, Or.) 1893-1987, 1900-05-11
In Conclusion.

lliH WAS rdtner crowded t0r ground to
stand on, as it took two columns for him
TO say ''liar" and brag about being the
only person in town that was able for
years to own Il team. That was about
the substance of his communication
but as | take it, the people are not in.
terested in whether he ever owned Il
team or not; but they are interested in
city matters, and have Il right to be.
The controversy between Mr.. Jones and
myself, in this instance, arose over the
administration of city affairs Mr.. Jones
raised the issue by attacKing my mo-
tives in introducing Il resolution cancel
ing certain liens for stree eetimprovements
In reply, | took this stand, and still
maintain ii: That Mr.. Jones is not quail
flied to speak for the city of Toledo, for
the reason that he still owes the city
$2lO on Il city lot deal; that he has
never graded Il pGblic street nor built a
sidewalk in the city of Toledo at his
own expense, The first proposition Mr.
Jones does not deny, as the records are
too plain against him. As defense, he.
put up that the judgment was recorded
against him because he innocently went
on a cost bond. The cost bond was in
that old Blain and Hale coal case but
the people and taxpayers of Toledo don't
care how he lost the money. The thing
that hurts them is that while mayor of
the city and bound by the same oath
he says am bound by he caused loss
to the city of $210, He talks about
what the records show. This is what
the records show:
Toledo, Oregon, September 20, 1898
TO the Hon, Common Council of To-
ledo, or Committee on Lot for CITY Hall
Gentlemen: | beg to submit to your
honorable body the following price for
y feet of lot No. 5, subdivision of block
No. II, city of Toledo, with Il feet for
alley or outlet to the right-of-way of the
G. & K. railway. Twill convey the same
to the city of Toledo, all graded, both
the lot and the street in front of the
lot, clear of all incumbrance, good and
sufficient warranty deed, for the sum of
5000 cash or $2lO city warrant.
b. 4. JONES' .,
"TOaefo Oregon, October 8, 1S9S.-
Resolved. That the city council buy lot
5, subdivision of block IA, as offered bv
b. +. Jones, and. the recorder issue his
warrant for the same upon presentation
of good and sufficient deed. ."-Council
Proceedings.
The vote was: G. l.. Gowell, yes; G.
b. Crosno, yes; Al Waugh, yes; /. NJ.
Starr, yes.
The order of council was made on
October 3, 1898, and before 8 O'Clock of
next day Mr. Jones presented his deed
to the recorder and demanded and re-
ceived his warrant therefor. Not much
time for the recorder to look up records.
He says, however, that the party for
whom he signed the cost bond has al
alrea.Y settled d portion of the costs.
1t is Needless, perhaps, to remark that
if he has, the city has never received
cent of it 80 far, and l trust that when
it is all repaid to Mr.. Jones he will not
forget the little formality of turning it
over to the city. The records in the
clerks office show that when the deed
was given to the city there were two
judgments unsatistied, one of which was
entered September y previous. Now,
us to street improvements: He says he
has paid out $2l0 for grading on First
street in front of his property. Now
wasn't that dream? And that $50 feet
OF sidewalk! Maybe you got mixed up
that which the city built along the En-,
mons property for the sole use of the
then mayor. | would say that l never
accused Mr. Jones of being party to
the city park deal, any further than the
part he took as mayor. will not follow
with up denial of his statements in
regard to my street Improvements. The
latter are in sight of most of the people
of Toledo every day and refute, in
stronger terms than | can. his wild and
unsupported statement / reiterate my
statement that the city never paid out
one cent for grading on any street but
Third street, on any private property,
with, | believe. but one exception, on
which desire to stand corrected. The
city did, | believe, once make au appro-
priatiOn to improve the street between
the Jones and Horning property on Gra-
ham street. Now, to close this article.
j will say that at the meeting of the
council last Monday night 9th inst) the
now famous Peterson resolution was
adopted by the unanimous vote of all
members present, the only absentee be-
ing Councilman Kubler. They did this
npon petition of thirty-two taxpayers
and residents of Toledo, after thor
oughly discussing the matter and being
convinced that it would be for the best
interests of the city. They did not care
who wrote the minance-whether it
was Judge Stewart or Judge Carson
and even if it should happen that Judge
Stewart did write it, that does not prove
that it was absolutely correct in every
particular. Even Judge Stewart might
err in drawing an ordinance. While |
deplore this controversy, | must still
stand by tho principle that Il man, to
question another mans motives in pub
lie affairs, must not be as corrupt in
misdeeds and NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. l
must also decline to call names or stoop
to, the corruption in Mr.. Jones' two
column article. A. L. PETERSON.
HE LEADER believes this should end
the controversy. The resolution which
started it has been adopted by the city
council and the lions aonnolpd Tho