Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1917-07-04
BELL-ANS
Absolutely Removes
Indigestion. Onepackage
provesit 25cat all druggists.
PROPOSE CHARTER
(Continued from Page One. }

linquent.
Col. Hofer strongly advocated major
ity rule, and asked the people to con-
slider well before they gave the city
arbitrary powers which would make it
possible to eonfiscate home without
what he called their Day in Sourt -
He asserted that paving interests in
Portland were behind the advocates of
the amendments, and that all special
interests in the city were also for the
amendments.
He declared that, in his opinion, in
the residence districts, owners of the
residences should not be made TO pay
for paving by system of assessing the
abutting property for the full amount of
the pavement.
Want a Square Deal.
Attorney William H. Trindle, in sup
PORTING the measures, said in part:
~ believe that the people of North
Salem stand for square deal and want
cne- The people in every part of the
city now pay, in general taxes, for the
celinqueneies of few. At present,
onethirteenth of the general property
tax of Salem goes to pay for interest on
delinquent street assessments alone.
"In answering Col. Hofer's state
ment that the delinquents are poor peo-
pie, / want to emphasize the fact that
until these cases were carried to the.
courts about two years ago, only the
rich men were delinquent, but that
when things are in such an unsettled
condition, as they are today, the other
people who owe assessments are just
sitting still and holding back from pay
ing the assessments to see what is to be
done. -
Mr.. Trindle took up the ordinances,
reading a portion Of the re-assessment
amendment to more firmly fix his
points upon the minds of his hearers.
He first pointed out the fact that while
the amendment adopts the form of the
state and county lien law, yet ii at
taches but legal interest to the delin
quents, and does not add a penalty of
10 per cent or a further interest rate
Of Is per cent until collected, as the
opponents of the amendment declared
would be the case. Mr. Trindle said
that according to the amendment, no at
torney fees could be assessed against
the delinquent, as the opposition held
would happen.
He said that that provision was made
in the amendment for the correct as
sessment of the Oaks addition, and that
the cry about the injustice of the
amendment due to the lack of right to
demonstrate was entirely unnecessary
for the very good reason that the
amendment specifically said that in
stead of the former two-thirds needed
to make a remonstrance effective only
a bare majority, 81 per cent, will be.
necessary. Therefore, that royal right
of remonstrance and majority rule
which Col .Hofer so strongly advocated
was not taken away or violated in any
way
In closing, Mr. Trindle referred to a
statement of Mr.. Hofer, which was to
the effect that if these amendments
were voted down, he, Mr.. Hofer, and
others, would bring up more equitable
plan for the settlement of the difficult
ties, by saying that the proposed plan
of the opposition was the so-called
Richardson amendment which has been
suggested already as a relief.
Grant Corby Against 1t,
Grant Corby, as usual, was one Of
the main opponents to the amendments
and in his talk, which followed that of
Mr.. Trindle, he brought out much
wordy argument He declared that the
present system of collecting liens had
never been tried. and that therefore,
the advocates of the amendments did
not know whether it would work or not.
He said that under the present system.
over million dollars had been paid on
assessments. He derided the prophesies
of the other side, and said that, so far,
none of them had come true. He de-
clared that the recent action of the
supreme court amounted to but little, |
and that the only reason why the mo-
ton to recall the mandate was made /
was that it was hurting the cause for
the advocates of the amendments.
Attorney Winslow was the next I
speaker for the amendments, and with 4
chalk and eraser graphically illustrat-
ed to his audience the exact situation
in the South Twelfth street case He ,
the fact that the reason !
for the recalling Of the mandate yester-
day was that it contained statements /
which were not in the opinions signed
by the supreme judges. He quoted the
opinion which was handed down, to the
effect that the case was decided wholly
upon the fact that technically the no.
tice was not printed for the required
length of time.
Inman Fears Confiscation.
He declared that he wanted paving in
front of his home, but that as long as
the present system prevailed he knew
he would never get it. He said he con
sidered the pavement in front of his
property of more value to himself than
t. any one else, and that he was will
ing to pay for it if it was laid.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Winslow S
Attorney Inman gave strong
talk IN opposition to the measures, stat
ing that if the amendments passed there
would be no resources in law whereby
the common person might prevent his
home being confiseated, provided that
he was delinquent in his assessment pay
nents. He said that even if man
lid object, the city would have the pow
n to override all opposition and re-
assess the property. He declared that
Is resident of Salem, owning home
.ere, he was absolutely opposed to the
NJ Tr;na1, aI,s.1 al, l,aato e.