Amador ledger., 1902-12-19
STILL YELPlNG.

his view point imagines he repre-
sents every progressive movement
in Jackson and Amador county,
is greatly worried about the manner
in which the editor of the Ledger
conducts his private business affairs
For the second time inside of eigh-
teen months list of subscribers to
new street in Jackson is paraded
before the public, and to his notion
the specially damaging fact is men
toned that the name of Richard
Webb does not appear as con tribu-
tor thereto, although a property
holder in the vicinity of the i'm
provement, and therefore sharer,
in his estimation, in the benefits of
the increased valuation resulting
therefrom. The object of this sec
ond-handed ventilation of this now
ancient subject is to picture the
writer as willing participator in
the benefits of other peoples money,
while unwilling to contribute to the
general good himself We do not
make practice of using the columns
of the Ledger to justify our conduct
in private business, in response to
every snarleyow that comes along.
If we attempted to do so, our read
ers will readily understand we should
have neither time nor space to de-.
vote to more important interests.
We have been prominent figure
before the people of Amador county
for nearly thirty years, and we take
it as compliment of no mean order
that the burden of the objections of
our would-be censors is not what we
have done, but what we failed to do.
We have not acted in certain emerg-
encies up to the standard of certain
high-minded patriots. Now we
plead guilty to this impeachment,
and we may also add that in the
future as in the past we shall prob
ably continue to lay oursef liable to
similar attacks from the same ma-
licious motives.
1t is the disposition and the prov
ince of the mosquito to annoy ami
mails of higher order, and these in
sects have their counterpart in the
economy of human affairs. In
this street accusation we deem
it fitting to depart from our usual
rule of silence. There are several
points which our eminent critic has
failed to mention, and which would
place the matter in an entirely diff
ferent light as far as we are con-
cerned. In the first place he omits
to mention that in the survey of
what is known as the Webb Mason
subdivision, more liberal provision
was made for streets than in any
subdivision heretofore attempted.
Every lot in that tract was provided
with a front and rear outlet Also,
the writer paid 800 for the outlet
from the tract to Broadway, in addi-
tion to the roadways carved out of
the subdivision itself, bearing that
burden entirely himself He also
was kind enough to forget that the
lots in that portion of the tract
benefited by the new street. he re-
fers to, were sold for $50 less than
other lots. This was the concession
on account of location, and in fact it
was in measure the donation of the
owners toward the improvement in
question. Now when all the lots in
that end were sold except two be-
longing to the writer, the PROPOSE
tion was sprung to get the street
opened, and instead of putting up
the money themselves, by virtue of
the reduced price, they wanted the
writer to make a cash donation, in
addition to the discount already
made in the price of those lots. He
did not see it in that business light.
This critic who has a penchant for
heralding his own contribution for
the improvement of his own prop
erty, also neglects to mention that
the two lots belonging to the writer,
while this street opening scheme
was pending, were bonded at price
less than one half the price for which
similar lots had been sold. This was
in anticipation of an increase in value
incident to the opening of the new
thoroughfare. So that in the event
of boom in real estate in that
vicinity, the party holding the option
and not the writer would have bene-
fitted thereby. The street was
opened, but, the boom failed to
materialize, so the lots remained un-
sold. We may further state that
the same lots are still for sale at so
per cent reduction, the street OPEN
ing benefit Notwithstanding.
Having contributed $12 80 per