Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1912-10-05

Municipal Reform Endorsed.
The seventh ward resolutions were
adopted entire, including the demand
that the sewer bill be construed as It
reads, that the popular loan plan Of
selling bonds be restored, that Justice
and constable fees go into the city
treasury, and that a public works de-
partment be created. Grant Corby
former city attorney, and special at
torney employed by the city to appeal
the sewer assessment cases for the
city, made an argument against the
bond issue,
He said 1t was absurd for the peo-
pie to demand a certain construction
Of the law. The courts would do that.
He was challenged at several points,
but the entire discussion was good
natured, and notice was given that he
will be answered in full at the next
meeting. Mr. Corby's argument is
given in full below. Mr.. Corby stated
that he appeared at the request of
those opposed to the bond issue,
Attorney COrby's Argument
"The measure providing for the is
sue of bonds to the amount Of $780,
900, to- be voted on at the next city
election, for the purpose of refunding
to the property owners who have
paid their assessments and liquidat-
ing any balance on account Of the con-
structlon Of sewers which may be un-
paid is a matter of general public in
terest and one which should be free
ly discussed on account Of the vast
Importance Of the measure, am one
who believes that this measure should
not be adopted by the voters Of the
city of Salem.
eThe assessments for the construc.
tion of the North Salem sewer were
held to be valid by the supreme court
and there has been no litigation con-
templated with respect to Union
street and Marion street extensions.
The case Of b. T. Randall VS.. The
City, being single property owner
who brought suit to have his as
sessment set aside, has been decided
in favor of Mr. Randall. The other
case entitled Jones VS.. City of Salem,
involving the assessment for the South
Salem sewer, is still pending on mo-
ton for rehearing. Furthermore, If it
should be said that the Randall case
establishes a precedent which will
control the other case, there is still
very erroneous impression abroad
with regard to the effect of either of
these cases upon the assessment for
the South Salem sewer
Only Parties Affected.
81 believe the attorneys for the
plaintiffs in those cases would bear
me out in the statement that only par
ties to the record that is to say parties
who contested the assessments in the
courts, will be affected by the de-
clsion. A large proportion of the
property owners assuming that the
South Salem case would be decided in
the same m inner as the North Salem
case, voluntarily paid their assess
ments. Others filed applications to
pay in installments, and as / an in
formed by the city treasurer, the on
tire assessment for South Salem Is
provided for, excepting balance Il
about $4,000, II is is safe to say
that II the pending measure is voted
down a large proportion oG this bal
ance will be voluntarily paid by prop
erty owners.
Can We Afford to Bond.
Nov, the question Is, can the peo-
pie Of Salem afford TO incur an indcbt-
edness of $3SOOOO for the simple pur-
pose Of trying to adjust this matter?
Il has been contended, because certain
sewers years ago we're constructed in
the central portion Of the town at the
general expense that all sewers sub
seuuently built, in order to do justice,
should be paid for in the same man
ner. Now, those who claim that rank
Injustice was donN on account Of
changing the method to assessments
against benefited properties, seem to
entirely overlook the relative cost OF
these several sewer systems. Because
a sewer system costing few hundred
or a few thousand dollars has been
built at general expense, is no argu-
ment or excuse for constructing in a
particular locality, sewer system
at a cost of slS9,OOO and then asking
the entire city to bear the expense un-
der a general bond issue. The pres
ent situation is as follows;
A Hypothetical Case.
"The. North Salem trunk line cost