Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1914-05-06
ANSWER TO MR.. ALBERT.

Editor Capital Jonrnal:-J. II. Al
bert, banker, assumes to be q quail
fled lawyer in his answer to Liberty
in the Capital Journal of May ..
In his effort to construe the road
bonding act he falls into such errors
and arrives at such conclusions as no
one skilled in the law would be likely
to reach.
Mr., Albert, before coming before an
intelligent and impartial public in this
discussion, should first have sought
counsel of some competent attorney.
He would then have been spared the
humiliation of the following conclus-
ions at which he arrives. lie says:
"rhe word authorize with the con.
text as used in section 90 of the road
law in section 20 or the road law, is
mandatory, and tne officer is required
to perform the act therein authorized
just as the word may when used in
reference to an official act means
must.
This is straibing at gnat and swal
lowing camel. If one is about Ia
build a fine residence he would not
employ blacksmith to do the work
however skillful ne might be at the
forge. He would hire an experienced
carpenter.
But applying Mr.. Albert IS rule OF
Interpreting portions of this statue by
the context. 1t is clear the drafters
OF this act were never at a loss tC
know what words to use when they de
sired portion of it to be mandatory
upon the officer. AS in section "a:
1.-THE county court shall prepare plans
and specifications Of said road and
shall invite bids in conformity to such
plans and specifications. " NOTHING
discretionary about that, is there7
Mr.. Albert S contention that the
word authorize" as used in section
20 is mandatory on the officer and is
synonymous with "requiredn is clear.
ly contradicted by the use of these two
words in that portion of section 5 per
tanning to calling the election and
reading as follows:
1.-THE county court, however, is not
required to call special election
upon the petition provided for in thi.
section, and the difference between the
proceedings provided for in this section
and that provided for in section 4 il
that this. section is intended to 'au
thorize' but not require the county
court to call special election, wherea.
section is intended to be mandatory
upon the county court
There is no further need of arguing
that authorize" is a word conveying
discretionary power only and is not
mandatory word as require" as Mr.
Albert would have rs believe.
An impartial Interpretation of tn,
road bonding act will reveal clearly
that the management of the redemp
tlon fund is entirely discretionary will
the county treasurer and county court
These officers, should they decree I,
do so, may place this accumulatinI
fund in the banks without interest dur
ing the entire period. They need no
loan one dollar on real estate (no
farming lands, as Mr.. Albert has tol,
us).
Mr. Albert says il the treasurer re
fused to perform his duty, our count,
court, through the district attorney
would compel him to comply with tn
law. But when that law clearly au
thorizes the county treasurer to kee
the fund in question ON deposit in tn
banks or loan it at his discretion, a
in the ease in the bonding law inde
discussion, then the county court an
district attorney would be powerles,
would they not
Mr.. Albert, for want of a substantial
argument, states that Liberty base
his contention on the assumptio
that our county courts and treasurer
for the next 20 years will be reerean
to duty. His final insinuation is mer
buncombe.
This language is flagrant breec
of the recognized rrles of diseussio
by Mr.. Albert, as no such imputatio
was made by Liberty. He is onl
pointing out what the powers of thes
officers will be under the bonding ac
should it become a law, particular
how the exercise of such power wi
effect the management of the sinkin
fund.
MIR. Albert has NOT told us why tn
law requires private parties who Nigh
apply for loan from this fund to pa