Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1900-1909, 1905-07-04
Where He Stands.

To the Editor of the Investigator,
Sir: You ask me ii [ am willing to
stand sponsor for the articles that have
i been appearing in the Corvallis Times.
concerning the present water controver
So. In reply beg to say, I would be
glad to answer you personally or in the
columns OF your paper, but am unable to
learn who its editors are and must, there
lore, adopt the present means of reaching
You.
10 the first place, I have neither. time
nor inclination to investigate personally
anything that has appeared in the Times
so that might be able to vouch for the
trutttllness of what appears in its col
umns. In a general way, however, 1 do
endorse what it has said about mountair
water, but in this controversy the Cor al
lis Times is not an issue, and whether
or anyone else in this community is will
ing to stand sponsor for its utterances is
notan argument either for or asainst
mountain water.
According to my judgment there are
only two Or three questions for the voters
to decide and they are, DO we want
mountain water and better system %
Are we willing TO standEfo municipal
ownership?" From a business stand
point is it wise to bond the city for $75,-
coo for the installation Of water plant ?''
Outside the editors of the Investigator,
who seem to think Willamette river wa
ter good enough, think the community
would be practically unanimous in vot-
ing yes" to the first question.
On the matter of municipal ownership
there can be honest differences Of opinion.
Personally, I have heretofore been op-
posed to the proposition, but within the
past few months have become convinced
OF the wisdom Of the present plan, and
further that only by such plan would
we be able to get mountain water. Fur
thermore [ realize that in matters of this
Kind there is community of interests
and our individual ideas must necessarily
be merged into some general plan in order
to get results at all. In other words we
must give and take and not bubble over
minor details II we expect to get together
On matters that concern the public good.
The fact that practically all OF the bust
ness men Of Corvallis and a majority of
the largest tax payers of the city favor
the bond issue ought to satisfy any rea-
sonable persol, that, from a business
point of view, the investment of SIS 600
in water plant is good one, and par
ticularly as the majority of these men
have carefully Investigated the subject.
The hi9h business standing and intes-
rity OF the men who compose the water
Com mittee" should guarantee that it is
no "wild cat" scheme.
To my mind the foregoing are the only
questions at issue. The personnel of the
"Water Committee, wood pipe, the Dali
las water and sewerage system, the
Times, personalities, Engineer Miller,
aud Mrs. Purdy's COW, are not proper
matters to be injected into this oontro-
yersy.
To my mind to vote against this propo
sition is to vote against the advancement,
| improvement and betterment of Corval-
lis; to vote for bonds is to vote for NUM-
cipal improvement, increased property
values, and to show to the world that we
are live, progressive people. We want
1 tn Sh0W that r11nSc- no ~, isD, IL ,}ood md
that Corvallis is not suffering from dry
rot. B. W. JOHNSON.