The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1920-07-08

n. =. IdIL Has Dccu uudhiuS SPSSSAAS
in favor of the $50, 100000 Carlyol
road bond bill. During these speeches
Mr.. Pratt has stated that much of tn
opposition to the bill comes from pol
iticians who wish to use pork-barre
methods with appropriations in tn
legislature. Being the only legisla
tor in this county and one who votet
against this bill, I felt duty-bound tt
answer this and other false state
ments by Mr.. Pratt in regard to this
referendum measure.
The truth is this: The bill received
tremendous majority in the legisla'
ture because Senator Carlyon as pres
ident of the senate held nearly all leg.
islation in his vest pocket. If this
statement is not true let Mr.. Pratt
Explain why, if this is good piece OF
legislation for Eastern Washington as
we are told, why, if you please, are
practically all Eastern Washington
legislators, now free from the Carlyor
whip, fighting this bill? I know, be.
cause I've talked to them. They think
the bill is rotten. They saw the paid
representative of the cement trust
help Carlyoi put the bill through the
legislature. They know the Carlyon
bill eliminates the only competition
the cement trust has in Washington,
They know what the cement trust is
without competition. They have seen
court records where the trust has &C
tually pleaded guilty to fixing price
and territory. But legislators who
are fighting this bill do not need a
defense as Mr.. Pratt is simply throw
ing smoke screen to hide poor case.
A man with good case sticks to
the merit of that case.
The Carlyon bill IS not good roads
bill. The bill simply gives the cement
trust the right to operate in Washing
ton without competition. If one should
grant that cement is our best road
building material today, it does not
follow that we may not have better
process next year. Also we know by
the history of competitive bidding that
competition holds down the price of
cement. Even with competition we
can build all our roads Of cement.
Surely Mr.. Pratt knows this yet he is
asking the tax payer to throw away
all this protection to get what? Moth
ing but monopoly, corruption, less
miles Of road for our money and a
privilege of paying $4,000, 900 in in
terest.
After eliminating competition the
bill provides that the work shall go
on continuously" regardless of the
price Of cement, mind you. Does that
word protect the state or the trust?
It is simply another rope in the gag.
Mr.. Pratt stated before the Com
mercia1 club that the bill required
that work start in each county at the
same time and that Benton county
will get fifty miles of pavement. The
bill does not make this requirement.
Neither is it good sense to presume that
Benton county will get much, Il any,
pavement. This $40, 100000 is to go
somewhere on 1900 miles Of road.
Conservative men estimate the cost
at 10000 per mile. This gives $50
miles of pavement, yet Mr.. Pratt ex-
poets that Benton county, with less
than one per cent Of the population,
will get z per cent of all the money.
He is sure an optimistic soul. he
assumes the cement trust will be char
table when it gets us by the throat
and that the other counties OF the
state will exert political pressure on
a political body, the highway commits
sion, to spend a large per centage OF
this money in Benton county.
No state in the Union has law like
the ,Carlyon cement trust bill. "A bill
to eliminate competition was introduc-
ed in the Oregon legislature and was
thrown out. The very conservative
Morning Oregonian stated that any
who voted for such bill
was either crook OF fool.
In my opinion Mr.. Pratt is support
ing very vicious piece of legislation
that is not framed in the interests OF
the state or good roads. When the
legislature discovered what was IN
this bill they tried to amend it to pro-
tect the state, but failed, but as prl-
vate citizens they will fight against
this measure, abuse by Mr.. Pratt not
withstanding.
with tho bond market as it is with