Payette enterprise. (Payette, Canyon Co., Idaho) 1909-1935, 1917-03-29


IS 2C and the banks in return loan
e the S. 2 at 10 per MT N or st
and thereby receives inter, st In me
amount of 52c. on the same, viii
You. Mr.. Taxpayer, if you are III
the same 2 sition as a good many
of the rest Ct us, have to go to the
bank and borrow the money at III
per cent to pay your taxes ard t0r-
nish the pank with the $500 to Loan
out again.
The Editor Of the Sentinel in ques-
tioping the valuation placed upon
county property within the propos d
pavette County asks fer the cost CT
the New Plymouth bridge, the frul--
land bridge, the Payette bridge, "he
Willow Gre ks bridges and the sma
bridges scattered around abort the
country Simply the cost o. th Sc
bridges is not the GU sion. The cues
ton is. What will be the valuation
placed upon this county prop ry
when the division of the prop rty
estimated? Do you suppose that
when the division is made that the
County Court House will be pvt in
at it's full cost. Certainly not. Meth
er will the bridges in the Boise val
ley nor the bridges in the Payst'e
Valley be put in at their full cost.
We believe that the estimate OF the
valuation of the county properly in
the proposed Payette County is prob
ably as close as any estimate can
be made at this time.
When the division is made Pay
cite County will be repres nted by
one man and Canyon County by one
man. These men will make the es i
mate of the valuation Of the prop
erty and if they cannot agree
third will be chosen and we certain
ly believe that we will receive jrst
consideration in the division OF the
property If the valuation OF proper
ty in this end of the county is ra s.
ed undoubtedly the yalua ton o. all
the property in all sections of me
present county Of Canyon will also
be raiesd, so it will practically make
no difference. If these men find
that we have more than $4,000
worth of County properly in tn end
OF the county and that the coun y
property in the other end of the
county has been valued too high of
course their estimation of the mat
ter will govern, but We have look
ed into this matter quite car fully
and believe that the estimate given .
is fair and equitable. The fact that |
we have only $4,000 worth of coun-
~ property in this part of the coun-
y is certainly not an argume MT .
against County Division when every
year we have to raise $4,000 to- I
ward the support of county gov RI
ment. But il is an argument, and
mighty strong areument. in favor
of County Division. Why should we
raise each year practically enough
money toward the support Of Canyon
County government to pay for all
the county property which we have
within our borders.
The Sentinel states that"The crux
of the whole matter is that Payette
wants a County Seat. She secs Fruit
Land growing, and Plymouth growing.
and Weiser growing, and hears only
The ghostly echo coming from the
vacant rooms of her silent hall"
We are pleased to note the candor
Of the Editor of the New Plymouth
Sentinel in admitting that the only
reason why he is against county di-
vision is because that his town is
not named in House Bill 108 as the
county seat of the new proposed !
county You will remember that four
Years ago he was heartily in favor
Of County Division, when New Ply |
mouth was named as the temporary
county Seat. Why at that time was s
le in favor of County Division? i
Why at that time did he argue that G
he creation of a small county would t
re for the benefit of the people?
Why did he argue that taxation could
nd would be lessened? Was il b.
ause he really and truly believed
hat such would be the case or was
simply because he desired coun-
y seat at New Plymouth? We have
cen constant in this matter We
ave always favored county divis ION.
We favored county division VIII n =
lew Plymouth was to receive the
ounty Seat. Then why should the =
entinel accuse us of not being sim =
ere in our belief? There can be =
o reason other than this The Edi-
Dr. of the Sentinel either four years :,
go really and truly believed in coun :,