St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1912-01-19
The Last Word

Editor Review believe by all rules oi
debate | am entitled to the closing Ad.
dress. ! will be very brief. Yes. voted
for the dock bonds. following the advice
OF the Review. Yes. was in favor OF sell
ing the city dock when We had an offer OF
$4,000. and did my best TO sell. but il re-
quired sin votes 10 sell. and We had only
FIVE. AZ chairman Of the street committee
| accepted only three blocks OF Fessenden
street. lvanhoe TO Edison. As TO making
tAx levies. giving franchises and liking sal
aries those things were agreed upon in
executive session. and who happened 10
make the motion in the council was OF no
moment. So much for my record in the
council which. however. has nothing what.
ever TO do with the question OF immediate
annexation. only when you have no case.
abuse the opposing council.
The Review says why not ST, Johns buy
the water worksp First. we could not sell
the necessary bonds unless the water com
pany would take them, same as the ferry
company did. Would they do itp You
know the lawyers say our ehaTler was not
legally adopted and turned down our fer
~ bonds another most exeellen, reason
for immediate annexation. Second, we
would even then have to annex in order to
get Bull Run water at Portland prices.
deny that my answers TO questions |
and 10 contradict each other. The FIRST
relates TO taxes. the 10Th to the selling price
OF land. The sum or amount OF taxes we
have TO pay depends on the demands of
the tax eaters. and has little to do with the
selling price OF land. Your argument
seems to be that the only way to keep
taxes down is to keep the value OF land
down. You may do il that way, but you
will kill the town. Stationary or falling
property values are positive sign OF a dy-
ing town. and ! will venture that any prop.
erty owner in ST. Johns will gladly stand
for the proportionate increase oi taxes II
you will sell his property at an advance OF
Is per cent. Your intimation that MIR.
Cook was yeafning to be put on a eommis-
sion, etc. was entirely gratultous. lie has
retired from official life. My proposition
was and is to discuss the appeal to the su-
preme court. allowing immediate annexa-
ton. to get good representative on the
new Portland commission when formed,
for which honor ! have nominated the
Hon. X. C. Couch in former communiea-
ton, which wish to emphasize now as a
man who gets things when they are due
giving us some show for our share OF ben
Cllo. ne INcNlCN oaiiAiAo
Il inevitable, and then fills columns with
arguments against what it admits i cannot
prevent against the inevitable. The ques-
ton under discussion was not annexation;
we both agree that it is inevitable, but
whether il is better to annex now or hight
il of as long as possible. The Review has
failed to point to single advantage to be
gained by delay. has failed to point out a
single thing that ought to be done or that
we could do by waiting one year or hve
years. the whole argument being that We
should not annex at all. yet admits it is in
eyitable. Why argue against the inevita-
blep Might as well argue against death
or taxes. am sorry the editor happened
to live on the wrong side Of the river back
in Pennsylvania it seemed to sour him on
annexation. Ask Albina how il came out
after annexation. have nothing to re.
tract. | assert that the best interests OF
this territory would be served by immedi-
ate annexation. since it is sooner or later in
evitable, and for the reasons before given.
/ do not think it profitable to discuss this
matter further. Very truly yours
S. C. COOK.