The Empire County argus., 1854-04-15
From the Democratic State Journal.
MR.. GAEFlELDE, on MR.. coNNEss' CONNECTION WITH
THE STAMP ACT.
SAN FEANcIsco, March 9th,

X.
THE STAMP ACT.
SAN Francisco, March 9th, 1854.
Mr.. EDITOR Having Loticed two or three arti-
cles in the San Francisco Hercld, relating to the
course pursued by Mr.. Conness, Of FL Dorado in
reference to the passage AN act at the last session
of the Legislature, usually styled the ''Stamp Act ="
which articles reflect rather severely upon that gem
leman, feel called upon to come forward and place
him in proper attitude before the public.
During the session of the last Legislature, it was
proposed to increase the OF the Democratic
newspapers throughout the State, by conferng upon
them such patronage as was lcgtimatey y within tha
Gift of the Legislature. That proposition did not
originate with Mr. COnness or myself After this
proposition had been under consideration long
enough to become embodied in bill, it was then
for the first time presented to me for my approval
together with the propositsl to ''share and share
alike" with the Miners -4}rOc1te, in order to sus-
tain that Democratic organ iii the mountains
looked over the bill and found mucn to approve,
and some features to condemn. proposed several
altcra ms in the bill, some Of which were after
wards introduced.
Up to this time am satisfied that Mr.. Conness
knew nothing of the Stamp Act bill When |
presented the subject to him he simply referred it
all back to me by saying that he knew nothing
about it, and was willing should do as | pleased.
This is all the connection Alr Conness had with the
matter, so far as my knowledge extends Cup to the
2Sth of April) on which day left the Capital on
my way to the Atlantic States.
The Legal Notice Act passed the Legislature at-
ter left the Capital, and after its passage bond
was drawn up providing for distribution Of the
proceeds of the Legal Notice Printing. | know not
by whom that bond was drawn, neither do care.
Suffice it to say that it and not Mr. Conness,
who made the arrangement to distribute the pro
ceeds of the Legal Notice Printing, to sustain the
Democratic press The future will dcyelope the
propriey or improprety of securing that distrlbu-
ton by bOnd
In the passage of the legal notice bill, contem-
plated the convenience of the public, ami the means
of sustaining the Democratic papers in the State,
and nothing more, bclieveing that we had both
Whig and Democratic precedent in other States for
that course In the transaction which resulted in
the execution of the bond alluded to, designed to
prevent all the patronage Of the law from flowing
into two or three hands am free to confess that
the effect which the law might have upon the Whi5
and the so-cGiicd Independent press of the State,
did not enter into my list of considerations pro. or
con- | have no hestancy in avowing, that, with one
or two modifca ions | should have been unquali-
fedly favorable to the bill. Its main features yet
meet my cordial appreciation. 1t benefited the
community at large and injured only small class
Of newspaper publishers. have yet to learn that
course of unprecedented legislation which enables
men to vote for measure and then rcPudlate II,
and spit upon it within month afterwards.
am surprised that any one should have thought
he found mares nest when he discovered the exis-
tenco Of that bond The very execution Of it con-
templated its publicity if need be- 1t could not be
enforced without being made public.
The effect of the arrangement with the proprie-
ctor ofthe transcript, State Jouraak and Republican