EASTERN CLACKAMAS NEWS
D evoted to the Interests o f Eastern
V olume 10,
N umber 20
HERE’S A CONUNDRUM
What’* T h e D i f f e r e n c e
Between Judge Grant
B. Dimick and
Opportunity
*
Answer opportunity Knocks
But Once. But. it remained for
the Eastern Clackamas News and
ye editor to listen to he gentle
tappings o f both last Thursday
evening, when the Hon? Grant
B. Dimick, on the floor o f the
Legislature and before an audi
ence o f several hundred legisla
tors and Clackamas County tax
payers, denounced the Eastern
Clackamas News as being largely
responsible for the present Cas
cade County movement.
It was another instance o f the
old adage, that Every Knock Is
A Boost and when t! e Hon?
Grant B. characterized the East
ern Clackamas News— "T he Fire
Brand’ ’ —he paid us a compliment,
which gave public recognition of
the fact that our labors have not
been in vain,
Despite a strong tendency to*
wards murdering the English
language and overlooking the
fundamental rules o f grammar,
all hats have to be taken off to
the Hon? Grant B. (exepting the
hats o f Walter Givens, Ed Bart
lett and other local orators) as
some young speech-maker. And.
as even the most beautiful flower
o ft springs from the dung heap,
so, the publicity given the East
ern Clackamas News, sprung
forth as a peerless advertisement,
from amidst the mess o f oratori
cal promises, exaggerated state
ments and distorted figures, pre
sented by the human megaphone
o f the pulpy city.
The News would not feel quite
as elated and complimented, had
this knock come from any ordin
ary mortal, but when given state
wide publicity by an ex-County
Judge, a defeated candidate for
the nomination for Governor and
a man who thinks he is on eof the
leading politicians o f the state,
the knock is doubly welcome.
In appearing as the principal
speaker for the Oregon City op
position at Thursday’s meeting,
Hon? Judge Dimick was doubly
qualified for the responsibility,
not &nly being able to voice the
sentiments o f the ruling, preda
tory county-seat politicians, but
appearing in the role of a person
al defendant against the attacks
and exposures made by the Cas
cade County faction.
E stacada , O regon ,
T hursday ,
During the oratorical fireworks,
Judge Dimick qualified his at
tack on the News by explaining
that one consolation lay in the
fact that it only occupied about
twenty minutes o f the reader’s
time to read the News from cov
er to cover but he probably for
got to mention that during that
third o f an hour, enough seed for
thought had possibly been absorb
ed, to warrant a few hours o f
deliberation.
Just how Judge Dimick comes
to be so conversant with the
Eastern Clackamas News and its
policy o f protecting and fighting
for the interests of Eastern Clack
amas County, is a question—for
the subscription o f said Dimick
was duly stopped a year or so
ago, along with those o f a few
other Oregon City politicians,
who felt it was unnecessary for
them to pay for their newspapers
as ordinary readers do. But the
Hon? Grant probably has been
spending his allotted twenty min
utes perusing the free copy o f
the News, in the city library or
sneaking a glance at his neigh
bor's paid-in-advance copy, but
last and not least, if all o f the
twenty minute periods in his
working days were as profitably
employed, there would be less
founda ion for such movements
as the Cascade County cause.
The Judge’s characterization
o f the News as a Fire-Brand in
no way hurts our feelings, for
Fire Brands are used to start
things -Fire-Brands are used as
beacons and Fire-Brands are used
to throw light into those dim
recesses where lurk the cobwebs
and dust o f corruption and if the
glow cast into the decay-filled,
stinking corners o f the Clackamas
County, politics, illumines the
beatific, refined, stately features
o f the Hon? Grant B. Dimick.
and others o f his ilk. the Fire-
Brand has not burned its oil for
naught.
True, Judge Dimick has done
Clackamas County farmers much
good and others by the name of
Dimick have done Clackamas
County taxpayers good, and if
the next twenty years finds the
name o f Dimick on the county
pay-rolls, as the past twenty years
has, the farmers will continue to
be done good but let’s hope the
farmers will be beyond their in
fluence and domination long be
fore that time.
O f course Judge Dimick hates
the News, for the News has not
Concluded on Page 3
Clackamas County
F ebruary 1,
1917
$1. P er Y ear
EXPERT ACCOUNTANTS MAKE REPORT
STATISTICS SHOW C A S C A D E C O U N T Y ROAD DISTRICTS
RECEIVED LESS THAN THEIR SHARE OE TAX MONEYS
With Districts Near County Seat Receiving
More Than Their Share
Boad Districts in Group No. 1,
Include the districts in the vicin
ity o f Oregon City, being those
districts which have recived most
o f the hard surfaced paving in
the past two years.
Road Districts in Group No. 2,
Include all districts not included
in the proposed Cascade County
or in Group No. 1.
Group No. 3—Includes all road
districts within the proposed Cas
cade County.
Whitfield, Whitcomb & Co.
C ertified Public A cco u n ta n ts
Portland. Oregon,
January 27, 1917.
To the—
Members o f the Committees on
Counties, o f the House o f Rep
resentatives and the Senate
o f the State o f Oregon.
Gentlemen:
At the request o f the Farm
ers and Merchants Club o f East
ern Clackamas County, we have
made a careful examination o f
the records o f Clackamas County
for the past seven years, for the
purpose o f determining the pro
portion o f taxes for road purpo
ses levied on lands in the terri
tory embraced in the proposed
new County o f Cascade, and the
amount disbursed within such
territory as compared with the
remainder o f the County.
A county map was furnished
us, w'hich purports to show the
location o f the various road dis
tricts and the boundary lines o f
the proposed new county. A s
suming same to b e'correct we
have divided the road districts
into three groups and given each
group a distinctive color on the
map. The districts in red are
those immediately adjacent to
Oregon City and are designated
as Group I; those in green are
within the limits o f the proposed
Cascade County and are desig
nated as Group III; while the re
mainder o f the county has been
put into Group II.
Taking the records in the
office o f the County Clerk as ac-
c u r a t e , w i t h o u t in any way
vouching for them, and for pur
poses o f comparison using the to
tal amount o f tax levied in each
district instead of the amount ac
tually paid in, which it would re
quire much time to compile, we
arrive at the following results
which we also place before you
in the form o f graphic charts.
GENERAL ROAD TAXES
Chart I
Total
Disburse.
Amounts
Statutory Charg. to
Levied
Proportion £ Districts
Group I
$447,590 $234,386 $296,820
Group II
614.492
325,710
386,498
Group i ll -
252,770
134,414
157,336
£ 70 "<> for 1915 and
50"<> for prior years.
From these figures it will ap
pear that Group I received 26",.
more than its statutory propor
tion, while Group III received
but 17 % more than its propor
tion, the excess going to the Or
egon City territory, thus being
relatively 50"» greater than the
excess going to the Cascade ter
ritory.
SPECIAL ROAD TAXES
Chart II
Total
Disbursements
Amount»
Charged to
District i
Levied
$ 61,785
Group I
$ 67.783
153,437
Group II
1:18,587
132,481
Group III 160.631
From these figures you will
note that, while neither o f the
three groups received as much as
its assessment, the percentage o f
shortage for Group III is double
that for Group I.
ANALYSIS OF AVERAGES
Chart III
The disparity is further set out
when it is noted from this chart
that the Cascade Group, while
having had an average assessed
valuation o f less than 60"» o f
Group I and barely over 40 % o f
Group II, actually taxed itself a
greater sum for special road work
than either o f the other groups
and at an average rate o f more
than four times that o f Group 1
and two and a half times that of
Group II.
Average
Assessed
Valuation
Average
Special
Road Tax
Group 1
7.888.215
Group 11
10,825,063
Group III
4.443.038
Concluded
Average
Kate of
Levy
9,683
.0012
21.919
.0020
22.947
.0052
on page 2