The Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1865-1870, 1869-03-02

. Board of Examiners to ascertain from ties
timony the fact of the case and present theii
conclusions to the Legislature at some sub
sequent time as to whether there is merit OF
not in the claim. And in this case it is an
extremely appropriate proposition because
there may be circumstances surrounding the
claim of so delicate character-as is pre-
cisely the case in point-that it becomes
very difficult for this body to determine just
" and properly what is due in the premises;
a claim SO delicate in its character that the
Judgment of Senator may lie warped by his
sympathy and by his friendly feelings towards
the claimant.
| am not going TO complain of the State
Prison Committees of the two bodies. l
think that they have honestly recommended,
in their Judgment. But do think that when
claim is presented BY them. which, 70 their
knowledge had never been presented to the
| Board of Examiners to be inquired into, they
should have at some length prepared them
selves to support the demand of payment
which they report favorabiy upon to this
body.
Now as to the claim itself. There is de-
mand here of 81 800 in currency. l do not
doubt in my owh mind but that the officer
| asking this relief has lost s. 800 in currency
But the question comes up in my mind, and
think it should come up in the mind of
any purpose of the State, that he should
have had in his possession at that place such
an amount in any kind of money. We know
very well that there are ways and modes 70!
placing money IN secure and safe places.
The town of Carson. small as it is, has its
banking establishment. where every discreet
man, in my opinion. If ne had 81 80, unless
very amply provided with safe facilities,
would have his money. It strikes me that
be fore relief possibly could Re granted by
this Senate. the receipts Of having that money
there for purposes Of the State must be un
der>tood by this body. If the Senate sees
TT without such understanding, to grant the
relief asked, in my humble Judgment they
exceed the authority that is vested in them
as 4 legi,llt body.
Imight remark in this come elton, that
the Sta i no insurance company. 1t does
not propose i'll any Of its provisions, Consti-
tutionai or otherwise, TO insure any STATE Of
Fl err against damage resulting from the &C
! i'm If the elements. 1t is not proposed On
the part of the State, as / understand it, to
secure every one of its officers az INST losses
when hres occur. | can readily understand
why an officer placed as the State Ttison
Warden is night have claim for furniture
which he has provided for his accommoda-
ton At the State Prison but 50 far this
other itam Of demand is concerned certain
y, cannot perceive how relief can De granted
20 him.
Again while claiming TO act in the place
OF the Board Of Examiners. we are without
evidence to any extent as to the second
branch of this bill, even. 1t is time; doubt |
not nor do | suppose any Senator here does,
that the Warden has stated correctly /
him in the matter of furniture and |
wearing apparel But for future legislation,
the committee taking to themselves the !
p-erogarives given the Board Of Exam liners /
BY the Constitution when ratified bv the peo- |
pie, come here without furtitying then selves I
with that tangible. documentary testimony |
that hereafter could be relied on by Senators
or ASsemJl ymen as a reason why the claim ,
should or should not be passed. l think the /
precedent, if you establish il at all, of the
Legislature passing on a claim in the first
instance, should be in documentary evidence
which can be placed in ;Lc aic..ivcs CT the
State Itself.
Again, whilst gentlemen on committee
intend to do what is right, and claim ior
the gentlemen OF this committee that 70
'erv great degree that is their intention, yet
the very position they occupy towards the
'Fiicer asking relief is OF that sympathetic
character that | insist should exunerate
Senator's from acting on caiIn brought IN
Is this is. They NAV take individual state
nsuts because oi that symnatAy and do not
or'!fy themst yes - a Court would for.ify
t>e!f. or as the Board of Examiners is
;ai!ed to 90 as every adjndicatir.s bo1y IN the
world is ca liet 10 do 50 as 10 determine the
,.ain on the testimony offered.
I shall bow, asa matter Of course be com
,c,:od 10 bow 10 tie decision OF the ma or-
" OF Senators on this proposition. But I
=. II On Senators 10 niarF their minds in his