Twenty Votes for the Dike, One Against — and the Whole Election Thrown Out

At the diking district election, held in the New Hope school house Saturday, there were 20 votes cast for creation of Diking District No. 2 and 1 vote against.

O. A. Onsrud, D. E. Rice and Joshua Beeman were elected district commissioners. O. A. Onsrud is a member of the railroad contracting firm of Jones & Onsrud, and is a large property owner in the district. D. E. Rice is also a large property owner in the district, but resides in Spokane. Joshua Beeman is an old and well known farmer of the valley and owns some 800 acres in the district.

There was quite a jangle over the election. C. G. Holmes, E. C. Rider and Joe Davis were the leaders in the opposition to the creation of the diking district. Mr. Holmes, finding his land was not included within the boundaries of the proposed district, withdrew and went home. E. C. Rider stayed, winning Davis over to the opposition. The contention arose over the fact that about 4,000 acres of hill land had been taken into the district. The owners thereof kicked, and as it was well known that this land could not derive benefit from the dike, its inclusion was held to be fraudulent. There were other errors in the description of the proposed boundaries. Mr. Davis was originally in favor of the dike, but did not want to see his neighbors wrongfully, as he believed, put into the district. The opposition demanded that the election be stopped. The judges refusing to consider this demand, the opposition refrained from voting, holding that this action would invalidate the election.

The forces in favor of the creation of the district, led by Messrs. Beeman, Bahler, Laforce, Smith, Onsrud, Rice and Redmond, contended that it made no difference what land was or might be included within the proposed boundaries, only that land which was actually benefited and reclaimed by the dike would be assessed. The balance would be thrown out. When the commissioners were elected they would have the power to employ engineers to ascertain what lands would be reclaimed. They claimed to have legal advice to this effect. They indignantly denied fraud or intention to defraud.

They held that merely refusing to vote would not invalidate the election; that those who had a kick coming should have appeared before the county commissioners on the date fixed by the county commissioners to hear protests against the proposed diking district. Having failed to do this, they were now out of court and merely lost their vote by refusing to take part in the election.

The diking district carried all right, but it fell down also — fell down because the notices of election had not been posted a sufficient length of time, having been posted but eight days.

Here is the law: The boundaries may take in any land — all kinds of land — but no taxes can be collected from any land that is not benefited by the dike.

Steps have been taken to republish the description of the boundaries at once, correcting the errors, when another election will be held. — Calispel Valley Times.