Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1900-1909, 1902-10-24
PATlENCF, GENTLE READER.
Some Remarks Showing sir. Walters the
Eallacy of His Latest Argument.

| deGaS TeacRSQ tue staSe 1u LIS PiS0o
ings, where Ne is willing to rest his Coz
| tention that "Fou are knowingly misrep-
| resenting me-" on the following:
He quotes from his article which ap-
pearcd in the GAZETTE of the I4th inst,
this statement:
cat the session of the Oregon legisla-
tu.e, 1901 (see SESSION Laws, page A3h
there was passed law making it man.
datory for the assessor OF each county in
| the state to provide himself with just
sncl books as are now under discussion.
Assessor Bush has at different times ask
ed the court to provide him with such
books and maps"
MIR. Waters, continuing; says:
"You reply to the above in the follow
ing language (See GAZETTE Oct. 11th):
'"Mr. Waters calls our attention to
page 243 of the session laws of 1901. But
the only thing to be found there touch
ing the matter in hand, is evidence that
the county court has no authority to
have anything to do with making assess
lnents, listing property or collecting tax
es, function which Mr.. Waters article
implies the present court is trying to as
sume."
Having thus put himself and the GA
zErrE on record, Mr.. Waters, by some
course of reasoning sufficient to his logic,
attempts to prove his contention that
"you are knowingly misrepresenting
me-" by offering this argument:
.'On page 24s, of said session laws of
1901 (aboye referred toy is the following
Sec. 2162-The assessor of each county
shall make plat of the government sur
veys and all town plats within his ceun-
ty, and shall note therein the owner OF
each tract of Land, and each town LOT,
etc.
Now, let us see if we cannot show MIR.
Watters-what we believe every person
else who has read his last article has seen
already-that the authority he quotes
proves the truth of the GAzETTE's state
ment.
"The matter in hand" or, in other
words, the matter under discussion, was
our article OF the 7th inst, which ac-
quainted our readers with the manner in
which the recent method of keeping up
and continuing the present owner book
began; the cost of bringing up the list
from June l, 1890, to July I, 1894, as
shown by the records;, the sum the
county has been paying Recorder Vincent
per month for continuing the list from
month to month; and the proceedings of
the court discontinuing the posting Of
the book from month to month.
In commenting upon the proceedings
of the court as shown by the records, We
said:
cit would appear from these records
that the present county judge took the
| initiative, when recorder, in establishing
the practice of keeping up the present
owner book, which the court has just de-
! cided is unnecessary
We asked the question, if it was bene-
| fetal for Recorder Waters to begi.l the
work of keeping W the present owner
book, and for this work to be continued
through his terms and up to the present
time, why isn't it beneficial and neces-
sary now?
eff it cost the county $3.50 to have Re-
corder Waters bring the present owner
book up for a period covering two and
one-half years-or 500 for bringing the
work up for a year-was the original
charge exorbiant, or can the court now
get some one to do it for less than the
original bidder was willing to Go it?"
Mr.. Walters contributed an article to
the GAZETTE of the 18th inst, in which
he made no attempt at a solution OF these
probler.s, but went off into a recital oi
the experience the county had with J. r
! Markly & Co.; and a lot of other matters
quite inapropos, which the GAZETTE coz
sidered in its issue following.
In that article of the I4th inst, Mr.
Waters referred to the session laws oi
1901, page 243-and in his last article
more particularly to section 1862, from
which he quotes:
"The ASSESSOR of each county shall
make plat OF the government surveys
and of all town plats within his county
and shall note therein the owner Of each
tract of land, and of each towE lot" etc
Now it anything in the entire section,
No. 1852, can be construed as touching
the matter in hand" in any manner
whatever, it SHOWS WHAT DUTIES THE AS
SCISSOR SHALL PERFORM. No place doe:
it delegate any of these duties to the
county court, which is very good evi
dence that the COUNTY COURT HAS NC
RIGHT TO ATTEMPT TO ASSUME THEM. Thi:
is what we said. This is what the law
which Mr.. Waters cites, proves.
*x*
Now, in order to assure ourselves anC
the public that there is nothing mislead-
ing about Mr.. Waters statement tina
"Assessor Bush has at different time:
asked the court to p, p,ovide him with sucl
books and maps" we should like to asl
if Mr.. Bush made this request of th
present county court while it was in ses
siou, for we have seen Lo record of it il
the proceedings? Or does Mr.. Waiter
speak of himself as "the court" and dix
Mr.. Bush make this request of Mr.. Wat
) ters personally?