Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1912-11-01
IMPORTANT POINTS
AGAINST CARLYON
TRACT UNANSWERED
Standards Principal Arguments
Overlooked in Reply to Edi-
torial Against Project.
Thurston County Pomona Grange
Condemns Proposition SEN
timent Strong Against It.

Because 1t believes in presenting
both sides of a question such as this
THE WASHINGTON STANDARD is pub
fishing in another column this week
= purported reply to its editorial two
weeks ago, attacking the purchase OF
the Carlyon race track for county
fair and demonstration farm.
This reply utterly fails to answer
the principal arguments advanced by
the STANDARD:
1. Why should the county spend
$50, 900 for Z fair site when It can oh
tain q site for nothing!
2. Is 1t advisable to spend $4,000
on project whose outcome is prob
lematical?
3. Why should not the $4,000 It Is
proposed to pay for the Carlyon tract
be expended in improvements and not
merely for . site?
It also fAils to give any reason why
the county should discard q 5000 OBJ
legation to assume $4,000 debt just
for one week year: any reason WIZ
the county should not test the success
o. . county fair before investing
go, 900 in nothing more than site:
any reason why the city and county
should add this property to it's non
"a acres n Priest P6int nsrr snd the
nreeert noor fsrm. anv reason vhv T
aemorstrssson M f.,m cennot g con.
drcted a. ~ nresent noor fsrm. ~
rssscr - nv she count shcnld tate ~
n Csrlvon.s hsnda : rscefracf nrsc
s,c:1sv sh.rncr.d 81 ~ Mn In ~
,.nrrc.e. ~ rea.on vhv the counry
shnnn nav NJ Car1von nraeficnlly
*. .e,.e s.~ae~ ,,ar .c,.s d. nrcnerfv
rSfeA - sue ~ s1reet - linz frontas,
- ffes. 49,. - es~hfh - : .nuarfes
n . r.sle hecr from that line. - ~
/, ehsreine for. land vhich haa thai
aroafase
srhe ~rttor .av. mn nne v,auld eon.
arrcf fmnrcyements on leesed lenl
The city can inst a well DEED 20 or q
.e-s. -, - !. p Prscet Point nerr a the
I. ~srtv :. 49, n. tha onlv reaso1,
~hv n a~.rrs,n .u~reefe6 thaf m
c.sv leses Il fnr n inde0nite tarm
srstecS ~ Aeedin~ Il vaa bacanaa 4
thorshts .o1ne misht nrefAr fhe citv e
resnsr nj. = aiI fhe mi nov com,
rri-in~. ~ nark FOR that raaftes
- v,riter eannot - "a any city iu tht
,,,S ,sr,.sd atsfee vifhout flndinx sky
srrsrer u, afferT .kvrcraner conafructed
~ iec.eS nrnnerfv. That sreument
csrrnx q snefained.
The vrifer fnrther says 4 q I'm
prohehle thnt the city would give ths
ccnnfv : rortion 81 the nark Tor such
Z nnrnoes CouncQmen ana othe,
cffv of1clala have indorped this sugges
fson and said the city would. An
Ifheir efatements to be believed or mot.
The writer says & would be impFac
EsieahIa Is conatruct 1 race track Ia tn
pork. CITY Engineer 3. L. Van Epp.
snya - excelIent track can b bull
ithere. which Il right!
The writer says the city guards th,
lrark 8 jealouoly to preserve IL nat
rral BEAUTIES and features that I
would not permit clearing Of any pov
It.oon of. IT, How much Of $50 ecrcl
/ II so acres! Not quite cne-eighth. I
That much were cleared. would II Dc
IstSoy the parks natural beauties an
lfeatures7s
The writer devotea several PAR
graphs to : discussion Of the HuGE1ns
property ct Lacey which the srArpAAl
covered In one. Even than ~ over