Williams news., 1922-08-04
A WORD FROM THE EDITOR

note two cOnCr1DuIIOIIS IO l IHO Forum this week; one favoring and one opposing the proposed new high school building for Williams. We ask that our readers read both of these care fully and store away in mem ory the various facts therein given and also give due consid-
 eration to opinions there ex- pressed. It is our intention to continue to accept articles on the school question, both pro and con. We must, however, due to the cost of publication and our limited space, limit any further contributions to one column whether they be for or against. If additional space is used it will be necessary for the contributor to pay for the additional space at regular ad- vertising rates. Get this straight; the News offers one column free each week for ar guments in favor of the new high school building, and an- other column each week for arguments opposing it.
 However this does not give any one the right to publish an at tack on any individual nor upon any property under the guise of a contribution to The Forum. Furthermore, anyone, hereaf- ter, desiring to make statements that will reflect upon the de- Sirability of any property for building purposes, must sub stantiate those statements with proofs that will stand in court. Some of our readers probably are not aware of the fact that if a publisher allows a libelous or injurious statement to ap- pear in his columns. he (the publisher) can be held liable for the damage which that statement may do even tho the statement be signed by another and be marked paid advertis- ing. Our only defense is to have the facts back of any statements appearing in our columns.
 This week in an effort to be PC14CSC1y Id11 IO side, we are publishing in the Forum statements which can not be verified, and such as we will not publish again without adequate proofs accompanying them. To square ourselves with the residents of that part of town lying north of the Santa Fe Railway tracks, we make haste to deny those statements. MT. and Mrs. Harold Greene, personal friends of the editor, and whose integrity and sin cerity we do not doubt, have asked us to publish statements which they believe to be true but which are not borne out in fact. They have not made careful investigation of a num- Der of points before writing them for the Forum and urging their publication.
 They state that the land offer ed by MT. Cureton, like the bal ance of the Flat on the north side, is poorly drained and that much expense would be entail ed in draining this ground. Upon the authority of my own experience after three years residence upon this ground. upon the authority of the ex- perience of many other resi- dents of that section, upon the authority of civil engineers who have surveyed this land and with the concurrence of archi- tect Mahoney who viewed the various proposed sites about Williams and declared the one offered by MT. Cureton the only available site that would be at all satisfa ctory for the purpose, l state that the ground offered by MT. Cureton is we'll drained both by surface drainage and by subterranean drainage thru a gravelly and porous soil. As for the exposure to weather and elements, the smoke screen and the like, ask any one who l has resided on this side and l they will agree with me in the l statement that we have less soot and smoke than the south | part of town and that the great CT exposure to wind is not ] noticeable. May I not be par doned in referring to my own little five year old daughter
 Il