Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1931-09-01
TEXAS GANGSTERS Blamed IN MURDER
IN OUR
VALLEY
A AFTER tomorrow.

A 1 the voters of Hidalgo. Cam
eron. and parts OF Starr and VII
lacy counties will have rendered
their decision.
AS TO whether or not they want
to form the Lever Rio Grande
Conservation district OF Texas.
Meetings explaining the district,
It's purposes and aims. are still
being held. eliminating with a
Valley wide gathering at Harlin-
gen on wednesday night.
Public has been given an ample
\ opportunity 10 fully inform itself.
4 Temporary directors Of the dis
tr.-t have left nothing undone to
put the issue squarely before the
voters affected.
ANCIENT ANIMOSIrIES have
been forgotten.
Lions and lambs" have gotten
together.
Are eating from the same trough
Gaining strength for the same
end, the further Advancement OF
the valley.
Proving that men CAN cooperate
when the urge Is there.
And when the need Is imperative.
AS MIGHT BE expected. OPP
position to the formation of the
district has arisen.
Opposition as sincere as is any
effort in behalf Of the district.
Opposition based on grounds with
which we are forced to disagree.
Principally because We consider
tn. the manifest advantages which
the district will bring to the Valley
more than counterbalance any dis
advantages which may result
ONE LINE Of argument against
the district. brought forth by hat
real veteran Of Valley developers.
&c. II. Swallow Of Alamo. says that
fpo much land Is being taken into
the district.
Argues that land now u~ndevelop-
ed will be developed against the
be-. interests OF land already under
development.
To which We would point out:
That inclusion OF all land suscep-
tible to irrigation in the district
serves two purposes.
First: as a safeguard for the
future.
Probably not in your lifetime,
surely not in mine, will all the
land included in the conservation
district be placed under irrigation.
We would oppose such a step to-
day or tomorrow or the day after
But-the time may come.
When such a development would
be vitality necessary.
Not next year. or the year after,
but perhaps in ten years. perhaps
in twenty.
Why not be prepara1 for such an
eventuality?
And why let the fear OF such
problematical action IN twenty
years stifle a proposition which
means SO much to the Valley OF
today?
eECOND: THE MORE land in
Z ded in the district, land which
nav actually be in need OF irriga-
ton waters from the Rio Grande
some day. the better a trading talk
will the Valley be able to put up
I'm its efforts to secure an equitable
division OF the waters OF the Rio
Grande.
We must have tn I treaty with
Mexico.
L. M. Lawson. American member
of the international Water COM
mission, tells the Valley that the
district will be Of inestimable help
to him In his work Of securing the
treaty.
TAXES TO BE imposed by the
district are mentioned In opposition.
All right.
The tax rate is limited TO SC on
the 500 valuation, as imposed by
the state and county.
Means that a $1,000 valuation
farm. for instance. will pay a tax
10 the district OF $3.50.
For the protection OF a $4,000
property.
To help insure the wa : rights
without which that property would
no be worth a tinker's dam.
Let's not blink at a sc tax when
ke have swallowed special taxes
Angling from soc to sl.65 in the
without even q blink
LOBBYING BY the district IS
opposed.
valley district lobbied.
And helped get a s175.Ot 900 fed
eral appropriation for the Boulder
Dan. project.
Lobbying is simply presenting
vour case where II will do the most
gooC-
And that's what the Valley must
10 on this water proposition before
1t Is too late.
VOTE YOUR sentiments on
Thursday.
we hope they agree with ours.
But vote them anyway.
And then. let's resume our work