The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1914-06-09
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1914
HOLDING A POST MORTEM.

Among the many persons who voted
against the bond issue yesterday, it is
safe to say that not all were moss
backs, anarchists, opponents of pro-
gress, and the foes of good citizen
ship. There must have been among
such a large number more than few
who voted against the bonds because, al
though in favor of improvements and
particularly of paving, some features
of the question were so distasteful and
seemed so pernicious as to warrant
the defeat of the whole matter at this
time. Perhaps there were enough of
this kind of fair-minded citizens to
throw the balance the wrong way and
to give the victory into the hands
of those malign forces in our city that
are trying constantly to thwart every
proper movement to make Moscow
what a university town should be.
We have no time or patience to dis
cuss the reasoning of those who are
consistently and obdurately opposed to
any bond issue whatever, to any pub |
lie improvements whatever, to decent |
standards of civic life, in fact, even to |
government itself. The small group |
of men in Moscow who have such mar
row and ignorant views have done
have not been able to stop or material
ly check the splendid, progressive
course of the great body of Moscow
residents And the influence of this
small and undesirable handful will be
a menace for only a few years longer
The generation that is coming up will
not be so ignorant, so narrow, or so
tight-fisted where the public welfare
is concerned. The libelous campaign
of Misrepresentation will not be sue
cessfully waged much longer.
Although We are not concerned in
an analysis of the views of these few
but really negligible few,
we are, however, most deeply concern
ed with the point of view of those
good honest, broad-minded citizens
who favor improvements, who work l
for the good of Moscow, and who can.
be counted on to exercise fair and
sound judgment and yet voted against
he bonds. The hostile attitude
If such persons as these deserves the l
most respectful consideration, and
heir reasons the most careful weigh l
ng.
Were these persons dissatisfied with
he quality of the present paving and
id they wish to be assured by adequate
ests that the present paving was II
ither satisfactory or that change b.
would be made? We have heard many Y
me and reliable persons say SO. m
Were they fearful that the grading al
0 be done would ruin the contour of II
he campus, cut it practically in two, W
nd make the approach to the univer- ID
ity both unsightly and indirect? IL
Are these not right in thinking that ai
is totally unnecessary to make cut ~
n University avenue? The paving done iN
t Pullman on College Hill is revela- "
on of good planning, and there are eo
0 unsight1y cuts to divide the campus.
There is no doubt that if the mat
II can be put up to the people just
ght they will support the paving that
oes to the university. But it is In
ighly necessary that before steps In
e taken, a plan should be accepted op
i'd publicly endorsed that would lead III
rectly to the noble and original an
iveway of the campus, by far the te'
st and the only really necessary ap- WI
zach to the campus and the adj al
nistration building.
1t is not easy in defeat to be phil
optical, but perhaps the promoters
paving by concentrating on one
street.-The university district Ca
d by laying plans that do not in We
lde any cut and that do include rel
lnection with the fine old campus me
I'd, and by insuring the voters of mo
good quality of the paving to be me
ID, may win supporters enough to the
ry the bonds Immediately. 1t is pre-
nth trying. ley