The Oroville weekly gazette. [volume] (Oroville, Wash.) 1905-19??, 1917-10-05
SOMEWHAT RABID.

In the last issue the winthrop Jour
nal devoted a couple of columns to
lambasting the Gazette and the editor
thereof. forsooth the Gazette had the
temerity to comment upon the obstruc-
tive attitude of one of the county COM
missioners in an effort to prevent the
construction of a bridge across the
Okanogan river at Ellisforde station.
on the Oroville- Wenatchee branch
road. The Journal, totally ignorant OF
our source of information, charges up
the GaZette's criticism to one OF the
owners of the Ellis-Forde Orchard
Tracts, as though Messrs. Ellis ana
Forde alone were Interested in the
construction of bridge at this partic-
ular point on the river, and alone were
to benefit by it's presence. If the editor
of the Journal were not as ignorant OF
the condition of things in this part OF
the county as we are of the condition
of things in the Methow valley, ne
would know that crossing at Ellis
forde is an imperative necessity to
large scope of we'll settled country
along the west side of the Okanogan
river, and extending far back from the
river The Journal would also know
that Messrs. Ellis and Forde would be
the least benefited of any of the petit
TONERS for the bridge, as they have
sold almost their entire holdings in
that part of the Ellis-Forde Orchard
Tracts west of the river. Hence the
construction of the bridge would be
of no especial Importance to them
personally. Those fruit growers who
have purchased tracts from Messrs.
Ellis and Forde are anxious to have
the bridge for the great convenience 1t
would be to them in reaching the rail-
road, and it was on behalf of those
people that Messrs. Ellis and Forde
exerted their efforts to secure a bridge
at that point.
This paper had the information from
other sources that Commissioner An
derson, often in the most churlish
manner, placed every obstacle in his
power in the way of the construction
of the bridge mentioned, and so far as
can be ascertained he made no protest
against the construction OF other
bridges, one of which is very expen-
sive one at a point where bridge al
ready exists. This paper has never in
timated, by any word that could pos
sibly be distorted into a charge that
Mr.. Anderson's actions were insti-
gated by discreditable motives, nor
that he has ever profited directly or
indirectly from the expenditures OF
public moneys, nor that a shadow
rests upon his official honesty, and
to intimate that anything of the kind
appeared in the article that the
Journal took offense at is merely
cheap tommy rot. When Mr.. Anderson
was a candidate for office this paper
believed him to be an honorable and
upright man, and has had no occasion
to change that opinion, but in the case
of the bridge in question he certainly
displayed unfairness in the matter of
necessary public improvements. What
the Gazette said about Mr. Anderson's
a bridge at Ellisforde is absolutely
correct and if that hurts the Journals
feelings We canot help it.
There is one feature of the Journals
article at which we are very much sur
prised. From our acquaintance with
the editor of the Journal we have sup
posed him to be fair, just and far
above the contemplate littleness that
on rare occasions one encounters
among newspaper men, wherein, not
satisfied with abusing fellow member
of the craft, even if such abuse was
coming, must resort to drawing in the
names of the family. The action Of the
Journal in mentioning a relative of
the editor of this paper, while criti-
Ching the article in the Gazette, an
article that relatives had no more to
do with than the man in the moon, is
a very unpleasant revelation.