St. Johns review. (Saint Johns, Or.) 1904-current, 1914-04-03
Reply to Query

Editor Review: We have not
ed the query of Mr.. Chas. f..
Garlick i'm last weeks Review
pertaining to the Committee s
Report, " as submitted in the is
sue of the Review Of March goth,
the purpose Of which query as
published in the Review is evil
IDENTIFY TO call forth this reply.
that il shall come out in print,
with the evident expectation
and intention of making an at
tempt to make political capital
out of il.
However, we will assume that
the gentleman has made his in
quiry in good faith. and make
him and the people of st. Johns
such answer as we believe TO be
square and honorable. and to
which they are entitled.
First: We deny his allegation
that "the representatives of the
churches of ST. Johns entered
into politics TO the extent of
placing a full city ticket in the
field for the coming city election
on April 6th." which is not the
case. If the gentleman will OBJ
serve the list Of names endorsed
by the committee he will see that
five of the eleven were placed on
the ticket by the primary, which
the law provides for. hence not
by the committee. Further. that
the other six names are men
who have come out independently
(which the law also provides
for), and the committee gave
them its Endorsement, which
committee, composed of citizens
of st. Johns had a perfect and
lawful right to do, of men law
fully before the people as candi-
dates. Notwithstanding that some
have alleged that we had no
business to do il" Why not?|
And further as to why the COM
mittee has been raised up. and
why they have taken said action.
we respectfully refer the gentle.
man TO the report of the commit
tee for the answer. We think
that report to be good plain Eng
lish and ought TO be understood.
and the committee stands by the
report as a square statement of
what we meant 20 say, and says
what we mean. To be sure the
gentleman can draw any. and as
many differences from il as he
chooses; the committee does not |
exercise censorship in that re-
gard, but from the nature of his |
query he has seen fit TO draw |
some differences that have never
been mentioned in the commit
tee, and We doubt il even thought |
Of.
We would like to call attention
10 the fact that the committee.
in its report, does not question
)r arraign the character of any
nan, personally or officially. |
rhe committee has not arraigned |
he present city administration,
but has simply stated what the
committee and every other good
'itizen of st. Johns ought to
stand for, Ii is not a church or
political ticket. We have asked
10 man his politics or religion.
rhe committee only asks for law
enforcement "as they are and !
nay be" +" Every citizen has a
light TO ask that much, and more
han merely asking it. has a right
O demand it of the city admin
The gentleman has been a
member of the city council dur
ng the past year. We will leave
TO himself TO answer whether
he laws. both municipal and !
tate, have been faithfully en-
orced in the city during the
'ast year. He ought to know.
nd if he does not know. he as |
N official should find out, and if
hey haven't been enforced why !
.aven't they? And if they {
aven't been enforced during
he past year what assurance has {
he citizens of 81. ,lOhnS that