The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1901-01-31
THE DIVISION PROJECT.
Congressman Jones Opposes 1t and
Gives His Reasons.
LETTER TO PROSSER'S MAYOR.
His Argument Based Upon Public Economy, and
He Claims the DISADVANTAGES to the Low
er County Will Be Greater Than
the Benefits
LETTER TO PROSSER'S MAYOR.

Representative Jones has sent THE
HERALD the following copy OF letter
written to H. w. Creason, of Prosser, in
answer to a telegram asking him to keep
his hands off the county division fight.
WASHINGTON Cry, Jan. 25.-To II. w.
Creason, Mayor, Prosser, Wash.-Dear
Sir: Your telegram of yesterday asking
me to withdraw my telegram to Senator
Baker in opposition to the division of
Yakima county received, and in answer
thereto l stated that l could not do so.
Under the circumstances l feel that
should write you more fully regarding
this matter.
appreciate very much the friendship
of the people of Prosser and the south
ern half of our county for me in the
past and regret exceedingly that any
thing should come up in which l cannot
concur with their wishes. | feel how
ever, that, as citizen of Yakima
county, l am entitled to my opinion
upon matter affecting vitality, in my
judgment, the interests of the whole
county; and while do not desire that
the position l hold should affect any
ones judgment regarding the matter, |
certainly cannot remain neutral.
If any material benefit is to accrue to
anybody from division it would prob
ably accrue to me as much as to any one
else, at least proportionately. l have
more material interests in Prosser than
l have in North Yakima, and if benefits
are to accrue in that way from selfish
standpoint, it would probably be better
for me to advocate division of the
| county. do not think, however, that
selfish motives should control. While it
| is easier to talk than it would be to act,
yet believe that were l a citizen of
Prosser would oppose division of the
county at this time. cannot see how
division would benefit generally the peo-
under existing conditions. In area our
county is large, in population it is com
paratively small. If you divide the
county it means, it seems to me, more
expense to the new county in proportion
to the service rendered than it has to
bear now. 1t would have to bear its
proportionate part of the indebtedness
of the county now existing. The taxes
to be raised to pay that indebtedness
would be segregated and levied upon
lands in the new county. All the ex-
pense OF the new county government, in
| Guiding the construction of bridges, the
repair of roads and everything of that
kind, would have to be paid entirely out
of taxes levied upon lands in the new
county. / believe that your taxes would
be much heavier than they are now.
High taxes impede settlement. Settle
ment is what we want. High taxes have
heretofore impeded the development of
our county. A more rapid development
l think will take place in the northern
portion of the county than in the south
ern part. As the county now is you will
get the benefit of taxes raised from such
development. If made a new county,
your people will not get this benefit. l
venture the statement that at present
the greater part of the taxes are paid
by what would be Yakima county, be-
cause it contains most of the improve
ments and productive lands. Taxes are
more equitably distributed now than
they would be in the new county.
While do not know the boundaries
of the proposed new county, feel salts
fed that the area Of productive and cul
tivated lands in the new county would
be far less than the productive and Guilt
waited lands in the part remaining as
Yakima county. In my judgment the
taxes would be much higher upon the
cultivated dlu ulCultlNdttd pOTtiOilS
than they are now. Where would there
be any benefit, for instance, to the farm
ers of Horse Heaven to have their farms
taxed probably twice what they are now?
The taxes would be certain, good crops
for them or not. Where would be the
benefit to the those having cultivated
lands about Kiona to have their farms
taxed nearly double what they are now?
Where would be the benefit even to
the people of Prosser and its vicinity?
1t is true some new county buildings
might be constructed, but this would
have to be done out of taxes of which
your people would have to bear large
portion. Would any buildings be con-
structed that would appreciably increase
the values about Prosser? | think not.
You would not construct an expensive
court house now. Very likely you would
take some building already constructed.
Then you would simply have the fami-
lies of the officers and that would be all.
This is not what Prosser needs to make
it city. 1t needs more cultivated lands.
1t needs more canals to distribute water
/ to reclaim arid lands. 1t needs manu-
r Z -. 4 -.