The Ontario Argus. (Ontario, Or.) 1???-1947, 1920-03-18
WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH?

we suppose " lS useless 10 ask tne
Malheur Enterprise to tell the truth
In It's campaign Of calumny against
the County Court but for It's own
sake that paper owes II to It's readers
and the public to stop the deception
which It has been practlclng for
some time.
No doubt the Enterprise publish
or can declare that the new editor is
not familiar with the laws of Oregon
regarding budget making; and Is
therefore cxcusable for its transgres-
sions from the truth-but the paper
can not escape it's responsibility
thus.
In recent issue the Enterprise
devotes columns Of space to defam-
ing the County Court. on three
grounds: that II passed a budget
that was not In detail the same as the
notice of proposed budget which was
printed In that paper; that II voted
for an item TO levy taxes TO pay the
tuition of pupils from rural districts
who attend High School in other dis
trlcts than that In which they live:
that II reduced the travelling ox-
penses Of the County School Super
intendcnt; and that n loaned money
To Road District No. 3; tthe Vale
DistrlcO from tho general fund
II ~ hard TO imagine how any
sane man. at all Informed concerning
public affairs and the laws aud Gus
toms governing these matters
would have the auducity aud the
nerve 10 present so bedraggled q
bouquet Of charges In the light OF the
law and this II the result
Tho proposed budget statement
printed II made up ot estimates Of
expenses and includes items propos-
cd by Interested persons who request
that the Court provide for having
given projects undertaken. This is
prepared by the officials and M In
the case last year the estimate OF cX-
pcndituros exceeded the legat limit
permitted under the ak per cent linn
ltation by several thousand dollars.
THE COUNTY COURT HAD TO RE
DuCE THIS BUDGET OR VIOLATE
THE LAW. therefore In open court,
on the date set for hearing objections
OF taxpayers II did that very thing
Notice had been given that the tax
payers would be heard on any Item
We understand that only one obioc-
tlon was made and that by Geo. w.
Mcknight. former county Judge. and
he objected to the High School tut
tion item.
but, the Court. AZ Judge Mcknight
aud ns the Enterprise knew, HAD
TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT
OF HIGH SCHOOL TUITION BE-
CAUSE OF AN ORDER or THE
DISTRICT COURT COMPELLING
JUST THAT ACTION TO COMPLY
WITH THE LAW. THE COUNTY
COURT HAD No OPTION SAVE TO
BE IN CONTEMPT OF THE DIS
TRICT COURT,
Now Il appears that Geo. w. Me
knight and the Malheur Enterprise
would deny to the boys and girls of
the rural districts High School edu-
cation; or would compell the tax
payers of the Vale. Nyssa and on
tario districts 10 educate these chill
dren at their expense alone; instead
OF spreading that cost over all OF the
people of the county of whom the
people OF the three towns form
large portion and thus pay large
per centage of this general tax
The falsity of the position of the
Enterprise and Judge Mcknight Is in
this ease so apparent, so unjust, SO
manifet an attempt 20 ignore the
facts. aud To mislead the people by
not telling them of the Court decis-
ion aud the absolute necessity OF.
the County Court to make this pro-
vision that further comment is un-
necessary.
Another of the objections raised
by the Enterprise. that concerning
the travelling expenses of the County
School superintendent is a repetition
OF it's previous position, THE LAW
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT
THE TRAVELLING EXPENSE OF
THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT
or MALHEUR COUNTY SHALL BE
5000 PER YEAR. WOULD THE
ENTERPRISE HAVE THE COUN-
TY COURT VIOLATE THIS LAW?
The matter of loaning money to
the various road districts involves
question of policy There may he a
statute that prohibits this practice,
but at 10 years OF attendance at
meetings of governmental bodies of