Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-08-26
STATE ENGINEERING
MIDDLE ENDS AS
LEWIS WITHDRAVS
Asks Board To Relieve Him
of Responsibility For
Highway Work

The state highway engineer contro- /
versv between State Engineer Lewis
and the state highway commission with
Chief Deputy Cantine as the bone of /
contention appears to be practically /
ended today after a munentary flash !
Yesterday when State Engineer Lewis /
fired - Mr. Cantine. Governor Witty /
cOmbe and the other members of the |
highway commission characterized the !
dismissal Oh Cantine by Lewis as "a
breach of faith, as it had been agreed /
TO let the courts settle the matter.
Lewis says his letter to Cantne was
misinterpreted and that it was merely
the written notice of numerous verbal
notices that have been understood be-
tween him and Mr.. Cantine since Aug
ust 10, when Cantine said he would
follow the directions of the board and
ignore Lewis.
At any rate, the letter of Mr.. Lewis
this morning indicates that he has de-
cided to withdraw from the controversy
as he says ne will withdraw from all
connection with highway wo.k if the
commission will enter an order reliev-
ing him of all responsibility for high
way work. State Treasurer Kay said
this morning that me made the same
proposition to Mr. Lewis several weeks
ago as the board could not rightfully.
nor did it expect to, hold Mr.. Lewis
for Cantines work over
which Mr. Lewis had no control. and
that tney would bond Cantine direct
and mold him directly responsible for
the highway work.
This action, said Mr.. Kay, was
prompted by the recent act of the leg.
islature creating the office of tine chief
deputy state engineer, which says that
the chairman of the state highway
board, which is the governor, shall an,
point chief deputy in the office of
the estate engineer, which chief dep-
uty snail serve at the pleasure of the
commission and whose duties shall be
suen as are prescribed by the state
highway commission. All work in the
department which has heretofore been
IN charge Of the state highway engi
neer (Which was Bowlby) shall be m.
der the direct supervision of said chief
deputy engineer. The above is aloted
from section 3, chapter 339, of the Gen.
eTal Laws of Oregon, passed by the
l9lo session of the legislature, and
mas been the law under which the state
highway commission operated in their
controversy with Lewis.
MI Lewis acted upon the interpreta.
ton Of the law of Attorney General
Brown, who held that Lewis was re.
SPohslble Tor the work of his chief den.
u'N' ana therefore should have the d.
rectlon ot the work. The matter was
TO be settled in the courts, but at pres.
eht such a suit will be unnecessary if
the board accepts the suggestion and
proposition contained in Mr.. Lewis
letter of today.
mr. Lewis said today that when the
matter was put up directly to Cantine
p 'ne highway commission, either to
qult or t0 follow the direction of tbo
po"rU ON August 10, Mr.. Cantine said
ne would ignore Mr.. Lewis. On tbot
date, said Mr.. Lewis. Cantine was
llred as far as Lewis was concern.
Ss1i, ana that MS letter of Yesterday 70
NiE 'antlne was simply the formal
written record aud had notbinp n 10
WiIh the proposed suit. Mr. Lewis soy,
n' .nS written statement was DELAYED IN
uluSr 'nat the vouchers fer the mont
lnlsht be passed because if ne rornse,
10 approve them all would be belJ mn
ana ne dld not wish to work a borJsni,
ON the men. " "''uS"'l
Mr. Lewis letter in full follov..
STATE Highway Commission.
salem, Oregon.
gentlemen; In view of the nnfor
'uhate mSunderstandngs in rcnrn"ti,,
Wlth the operation of the new road IN ,' ".
d WlSh to state my position and offe,
Il suggestion for settlement of tbe con-
, troNerSies '"V 'oh
opposed the passage of this oct an,
( la,pr sought itg veto. Failing in tbos,
olloLtS' with the approval of fhe uovnr
b nor | secured an opinion from t5o ~,
. toIhey general, wnich | have sn,"o =" "'
0 deavored to follow. ''"'e eu
Apparently contrary TO this on;,,;o,,
t"' hlghwaN commission entornJ en-, ,a
( u'r some time ago directing Nir W. VI
II ,n., un,' my chlet deputy, to take charpo n
$ Sl'"lh construction work. rcportiSy y
p. Ine ul commission direct Recently : NJ
9 anime stated that he woulj jG tSi'
j. nave not seen fit to contest tbis m -,
IS NJ NJ anu my recent letter dismi.si,,
g Nsr Nantlne was merely cmfi,moto,
n OF my verbal action iminndint,l,. NV. ~
h m m'S u'eislon to report to the commi,
IS a'on ana not TO me. This action sna,,'
a W nave been construed as n hroooL "a"
a iallh, Which was certainly nor irta,'I
~ ""S . mere revocation ot my perso,
~ IpPolh'm'nt and was presumed IN !,
v III harmony with the desire of rho co,,
q ,...l, ",sslon Tor friendly suit. II WINS wv ",
q '"''hu'd to, and did not revoke ~
q SV.VI"oI : appointment Nv o,ini,.
. h19WNeN'r' Is that the work nnl ln1mU. '',,'
4 Sinhty should not be divided E,.HUI'
/. ~ ~, 'dn'lhe or myself shouid have na,,
4 Plete charge of the enuineer,ng ,vo, oou
y, win sutticicnt power and nutbe,;,,.
y Pr.perly execute the same. IuJer S.a
: ent conditions, it seems i,,nos',, P'v
= sV, u viear cut division of t1e worL
" Nhlle | have been endeavorino w y, " T.
: low the law as interpreted by tbo y
= 'ornoy general, yet the many diffS
eneeS on opinion as TO the meaning
.. 'nis law, Misunderstanding arisi,
~ " theretron, and the continual turmoil
/" winch the road department has no,
: involved, seems to render a coutinnan,
u IN THIS course, detrimentals 10 tho be
y interests of road work in Oregon
" cannot concur in the commission
!, Interpretation OF the law respecting n
"a duties and responsibilities. But h \
y commission will enter an order relic
q ing me Of all duties and responsibiliti
IS IN connection vita highway work, al