Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1900-1909, 1902-10-17
LET us CONSIDER.
Someshing In Consideration of Mr.. Wat
ters' Contentions-A Newspapers Duty
and Privilege.

Someshing In Consideration of Mr.. Wat
ters' Contentious Newspapers Duty
and Privilege.
In our issue of the 7th inst. appear et
an article containing copy of the order
of the county court, issued at its last ses-
sion. disseminating the keeping up of the
present owner book and maps from
month to month; and a statement of the
testimony Recorder Vincent gave as tc
the necessity OF keeping up the present
owner book from month to r,onth as
matter of convenience TO the public, he
having been called before the court to
give his opinion on this subject.
In pursuance of its duty and privilege
as newspaper, to discuss matters o.
public business, the GAZETTE proceeded
to acquaint it's 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 Ist, 1890, to July 1st, 1894
4 as shown by the records; and the sum
the county has been paying Recorder
| Vincent per month for continuing the
list from month to month, according tc
the custom established by Mr.. Waters,
when recorder.
MIR. Walters took exception to our ar
| ticle, and handed US a communication
the purpose of which was, according to
its Introductory paragraph, to correct
"wrong impressions conveyed by your ar
ticle of the 9TH inst, entitled Present
Owner Books."'
In Mr.. Waters letter, which appeared
in cur last issue, he fails to controvert
the correctness or business of one state
ment made in our article. True, he takes
issue with the statements make by Re-
corder Vincent, in his testimony before
the court, wherein that gentleman testi-
fed that the books and maps were con-
tinually being studied and inspected by
farmers and the public generally, and
that he considered the book and map of
great benefit and convenience.
Touching this matter, Mr.. Waters
says: Your statement that this (the
discontinuance of keeping p the book and
map from month to month) will result in
great inconvenience to the farmer is over
drawn. You are not well advised or are
wilfully misleading your readers" Mr..
Waters attention is respectfully called
to the fact that HE WAS SO ADVISED BY
RECORDER VINCENT IN THE PRESENCE OF
rrI;E An Tx5I r1,o
GAZETTE SO stated and Mr.. Waters has
not denied the truth of the assertion.
What the GAZETTE said in regard to the
matter was this: ''The discontinuance
of the keeping up of the present owner
book will prove greater disappoint-
nent to farmers than TO any other class
OF people in the community" (See GA
zETrE Oct. 7th-last paragraph in article
entitled 'Present Owner Books.')
We find after reading Mr.. Waters
communication and again carefully per-
using our article which he eriticises, that
we made two slight errors: Mr.. Wat
ters received $3.50 for the work he did for
the county on the present owner books.
instead of only $500 as we stated; and
Mr.. Vincent has been paid $3.50 per
month for the work Mr.. Waters charged
the county something over SS per month
to perform.
Since Mr.. Waters has been so soiici-
tous that the GAZETTE shall be absolutely
correct in its statements-andi if always
strives to be-we will take the same
privilege and correct few s'wrong inn
pressions" conveyed by his article. His
assertion that the present owner book,
prepared by J. R. Markley & Co., cost
Benton county $1,000 is not only mis-
leading, but it is not fact, The records
OF the proceedings of the county court
show that Markley & Dunstan charged
the county 500 for making the present
owner list. They were paid one per
cent on s65l, ,9S7.20, the assessed value
of property listed by them not on the
tax list for 1889, which is $6,519.87.
But the latter sum was aside from the
price charged for the present owner
book. If Markley & Dunston had COM
pletsd their contract of making the pres
ent owner book and had added no
property to the list of 1889, they should
have gotten $500 for their work. More
than this, Markley & Dunston bid
500 for bringing the list up from the
time the county was organized, while
Mr.. Waters charged the county $3.50 for
bringing the list up for period covering
only about three years, or $l00 per year.
Mr.. Waters calls our attention to
page 243 of the session laws of 1901. |
But the only thing to be found there
touching the matter in hand, is evidence |
that the county court has no authority !
to have anything to do with making as
sessments, listing property or collecting |
taxes, function which Mr.. Walters |
article implies the present court is trying |
to assume In this connection, the at
tention Of the county judge is respect
fully called to the fact that lit is easy"
to eminent authorities, sto
DRIFT uncon sciously away from the mean
ing of the law giving power altogether,
and establish what was never intended
or even thought Of"
Another misstatement made by Mr.. /