Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1909-04-19
TWO court HOUSES
VIDE11E MAKES SPECIOUS Plea
FOR Scheme.
The Public Good Sinks into lnsignifi-
CanCe When Supposed Private
interests Are r1enaCed. County
Seat Has Been Brake on the PROD
reSS of Monte SanO for 20 Years.

reSS of rtOntes sanO for 20 Years.
The Montesano Vidette in its last
issue evolves a lengthy and labored
article in defense of the proposition
to squander county money to the ex-
tent of a quarter million dollars for
the purpose, not Of serving a public
necessity, but to firmly anchor the
county seat of Chehalis county at
Montesano when the time arrives for
the division of the county, for, in its
final analysis this is just what the
present contention amounts to, and
the Montesano push is fully alive to
the situation.
This push realizes that the days Of
the tail wagging the dog are rapidly
passing away, and is now anxious to
hedge. Outside of the small Monte
sano bunch that is handling this
matter there is no disposition to
divide the county. Here on Grays
Harbor where the division feeling
ran rampant two and half years
ago it has died away, and all the peo-
pie ask is that the county be man
aged for ALL the people, not for any
special locality or set of men. But,
to the wiseheads the establishment
of a court on the harbor means
the ultimate removal of the county
seat-a measure that does not re-
quire a great degree of foresight
to discover-as soon as the absurd
ity of dual county government
appears.
To this fact is due the sudden COL
lapse of the Montesano court house,
which according to the Vidette less
than three years ago is sufficient
for the whole county for twenty
years. Now we are gravely inform
ed by the Vidette that the build
ing is inadequate, Notwithstanding
the fact that within two months
three-fourths Of its court business
will be transferred to the harbor. We
beg to remind our esteemed contem-
porary that there is no "clamor" for
county seat removal down this way,
all the people here desire is a mod
est court house-costing not more
than $50, 0,0O0-and the continued
use of the building at Montesano as
long as it's size and condition will
justify-and we have the excellent
authority referred to above that 1t
is good for II years yet.
The points sought to be made by
the Vidette article are either far
fetched or untrue, and the argument
reads like the brief of a lawyer in
a desparte case. With one point we
fully agree, which is that the towns
of the county would neither gain or
lose by the removal of the county
seat. It certainly has not proved to
the advantage of Montesano in the
past twenty years, on the contrary,
it has acted as sort Of industrial
paralysis upon that community. Take
the case of it's nearest rival, Elma.
Situated amidst like resources, but
without river navigation, Elma has
sturdily won on and on until from a
mere hamlet as compared with
Montesano 20 years ago, it has out
stripped the latter in the volume of
business, and has nearly, if not quite,
caught up in population.
But, in it's effort to show that the
taxpayer will not feel the cost of
the proposed dual court house
scheme, the Vidette falls into ro-
nance, when it cites the cruising of
timber that is to SO greatly reduce
the tax rate. More than one-half
the time allowed to make the county
assessment has passed and no at
tempt to provide for the cruise of
timber has yet been made public.
Again, this article says: "The great
majority are satisfied with the pres
ent location" If this be true, why
spend an enormous sum of money to
anchor this county seat?
Below is printed an article from
the Elma Chronicle of last Saturday
which is reproduced to substantiate
statements of the Herald to the effect
that the opposition to this preposter-
GUS scheme is county WITHDRAWING
part of Montesano.
Practically every paper in the
county, with the exception of the
Vidette, is seriously opposed to the
erection of two court houses in this
county, the one at Montesano and
the other on the Harbor, and in