The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1915-03-11
Senator Sweet Dissects Gov.
Alexander's Reasons for
Vetoing Bridge Bill.
COUNTY SLANDERED
Governors Statements False, As
Shown BY County Levy For
Roads and Bridges.

Bose Statesman: EITHER through ig-
norance or intention. Governor Alex
ender. in his veto message ON II. b.
No. 164. made number Of false and
misleading statements which l feel, In
Justice TO my colleagues. 1 must cor
rect" said Senator L. s. Sweet OF Ida
I no county Sunday evening In the SEN
ate.
"H. B. No. 1e< provides an appro-
priation Of fifteen thousand dollars in
bonds to construct bridge across the
Salmon river near the mouth Of White
bird creek In explaining the needs to
the senate. i made the statement that
Idaho county expended nearly or quite
one-third Of its total income for roads
and bridges, which statement like
wise made to the governor IN COM
mendng the measure to him. To my
utter surprise the governor. in his veto
measure made a statement exactly to
the opposite.
"In relation to the taxation for road
and bridge purposes, the governor In
his veto message says: Idaho county,
relatively to other counties In the state.
does not raise much money for it's
roads and bridges. In 1913 1t raised
for roads and bridges only $509S.41
while during the same year Clearwater
cuonty raised $50. $500; Elmore coun-
ty. $1s,S96S9; and Washington county,
$27.159.s6
This part OF his message Is a'bso-
lutely false and how Governor Alexan-
der could have made such a statement
in view. of the truth, which was cas-
ily obtainable, is beyond comprehen-
sion. The statement is direct at
tack on Idaho county and the county
Is done an trreparable injustice by rea-
son of It's utterance by the chief ex-
ecutive of the state, carrying to the
world an imputation that does not ex-
ist The real truth Of the matter is
the levy for roads and bridges in Ida
no county for 1913 was $S5, $4,000.
"I want to cite the levies in Idaho
county for the year 1913 for every
purpose: Roads and bridges 23.Os;
county schools, 21.S2; state purposes.
21.S2 county expenses, 20; warrant re-
! demption, 1921 am advised there lis
an increase of per cent for 1914.
We have paid the state Idaho
county's share of taxation in 1918 the
sum of sS1 .251.s6 and much more in
1914. This indicates clearly whether or
not our county is doing its share in
contributing TO the general expenses
of the state.
I'VE have vast mountain area from
y which we derive practically no county
revenues ca at least not enough to
justify the cost of assessm ent and col
. lection. We have borne the burden of
" maintaining these roads and trails ever
since the creation of the county be-
sides contributing many thousands Of
u dollars in building new roads by pri-
vate subscriptions. No other county
y has such conditions to contend with
and now that settlement has reached
to a point where the construction OF
= roads beyond our means has arisen, we
y feel that we are entitled to state aid
. "It Is with extreme regret that / am
. compelled to refute the statements
;, made by the chief executive of the
/" state but It seems apparent that he
has seen fit to make an attack on
Idaho county without just provocation
and with apparently no purpose in
view except in an attempt to foist
upon the people of the state some weak
or fimsy excuse that might permit
him to chop off few dollars of ap-
preparation, upon which the legislative
!, branch of government saw fit to place
- the stamp of approval by a very hand
; some majority, with a hope possibly
:. that his false measure of economy
- might be looked upon as a wise and
- mature exhibition Of business sagacity
= rather than the injustice that it is.
=, would not be true to my colleagues
=, - or myself or loyal to my constituents
- did l not express in clear and unmis-
- taxable language my disapproval of
the unjust attack on Idaho county by
the chief executive of the state"