Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1913-03-04

real facts are that there are two
sides to this case, just as there arc
to every other case, and those famil-
lar with it, are fully convinced of it.
There were senators who voted to
sustain the governors veto who new
er have been accused of an over
abundance of friendship for him, and
there were those who voted for the
bill who have often been found apol-
ogizing for the governor and who
have stood with him in many of his
positions.
Senator Thompson, in advocating
the passage of the bill, comes from
the country affected. He knows, or
should know, more about it than any
one else. He has never been acused
of double-dealing or misrepresenta-
ton. He made statements on the
floor of the senate in answering the
remarks Of those who opposed the bill
that were not contradicted, and which
if untrue, would bring him into dis
repute. He plainly said that the gov
ernOr, while visiting him at his home
last summer, in discussing the bill We
toed at the last session, admitted that
the bill was a "gOod one" and that
he was "sorry" he vetoed it.
Thompson further said that the gov
ernOr had expressed the hope that
the bill would pass at the recent ses-
sion. Yet, in the fact of this state
ment, which was made openly, with
out evasion and so plainly that all
who heard it understood, we read
that the "foes of Governor West met
with smashing defeat" Nobody
questioned the statement of the SEN
ator from Lake county, and The OBJ
server, basing its belief on what the
writer has learned of the character
of the man from personal Observa-
tion, and from what he knows of the
governor, believes that the statement
was true.
The Observer has, above all things
else, endeavored to be fair in the
treatment of all public questions re-
gardless of who opposed or advocated
them. Moreover this newspaper can
not be accused of partisanship in its
treatment of Governor West, but we
believe that he was mistaken in his
veto of this famous swamp land case
Just as he has been mistaken in many
other of his official acts. He vetoed
the sanitary live stock inspection
bill passed at the 1911 session and
afterward admitted to friend of the
bill, that he didn't know much about
it and was sorry that he had placed
his disapproval upon it. We have
always given the governor the bene-
fit of the doubt in every ease and. if
he has made mistakes. we have been
of the opinion that they were made
through inadvertence. But to have
every act which does not dovetail
with his peculiar ethics characteriz-
ed as unfriendly or TO be dubbed as
a "foe" merely because one does not
accept his every act and utteranee as
gospel merely ON his say-so, shows
and disposition to un-
iruthfulnesS which is not creditable.
With the Portland Journal. il ap-
pears that every time a veto Of the
governor is overIidden. il is a victory
for the Interests or the "eorpora-
ions and whenever the action is
he other way, and his disapproval is
then il is a smashing de-
'eat for his foes." Isn't il possible |
hat people may employ their own +
IDEAS in such mattersi Is il entirely /
,ut of the question that one may hon
,Stly differ from the distinguished 4
yovemori The Journal and its fol-
overs charge "polities whenever
Inyone opposes the governor. vet they
.mbrace every opportunity 10 make
,olities out Of every move in which
he governor fEures as one Of the Op-
,osing factions. According 10 them.