The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1911-04-27

of the five Good Road Bills presented
by the Oregon State Good Roads Asso-
ciation.
The State Aid bill was a Jest
throughout the entire legislature. 1t
was used as a will o. the wisp. The
Multnomah delegation in the house
never intended it to become law and
we farmers only smiled at their wasted
energies in trying to make us believe
they were philanthriopists. We knew
it was done for purpose.
We offered substitutes for both the
Highway Commission and County
Bonding Bills. At the last of the
session, after the most objectional
features of their Highway Commission
bill had been corrected by both houses,
we were then forced to a compromise
and accept their amended Highway
Commission bill in order to obtain our
bonding bill. This is the other system
of law making in Oregon mn which we
hear but little comment. To say it is
vicious is putting it mildly. Our whole
fight at Salem on Good Road legislation
may be summarized as follows: They
wanted the Governor to appoint a
Highway Commission of three mem
bers from diffrent parts of the state.
We wanted to save this expense and
put it on Good Roads. They wanted
this comission to appoint a Highway
Commissioner. We wantd the state
engineer to appoint him. They wanted
the Highway Commissioner to be a
dictator. We wanted him to be an
advisor. They wanted him to be ''well
versed in'road building" We wanted
him to be civil engineer and prac-
teal road builder. Instead of the
Highway Commissioner being dictat-
or to our county courts, we wanted him
to hold the same relation to them that
our State School Superitedent holds to
our public school boards. An instruct
or, educator and statistician.
Our substitute bonding bill which
passed both houses and was vetoed by
the Governor would have solved the
whole Good Roads movement had it
become law. But the "Dog-in-the-
Manager" fellows of Portland would
not permit it, and why? 1t can be told
in one sentence. They could not con-
troll the location of the roads upon
which the bonded money was to be
spent. We asked that the people who
vote for the bonds shall have the
power to say upon what road or roads
the money shall be spent. Is there a
man in Oregon who dare say that this
is not right? 1t would be most just,
most practical and most satisfactory.
This one power in the hands of the
people was about the only difference
between their bonding act and ours.
For fighting for this principle we were
accused of saying the county courts
were not honest. Is county official
dishonest because we compel him to
give bond? No, but for fear we may
get one who will be dishonest, we use
this protection. Just so with locating
the road or roads upon which we desire
to spend our money. We desire to
name them for fear we might get
county court who could be influenced to
betray a public trust for selfish pur-
poses. AS my article is already too
long, must close by asking every
voter to study these or the future Good
Road bills carefully and also investi-
gate the motives and character of work
done by the Legislative Committees
lTuln uOlh lHe armies Union anu Inc
State Grange of Oregon during the
last Legislature. Our record is an
open book. We worked for Good
Roads Legislation with all our might
and main and will continue to do so
until we obtain laws that are free from
political trickery and that will permit
us to build rural roads unexcelled in
any country. Yours respectfully,
A. |. Mason.