The Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1865-1870, 1869-04-23
LANDER vs.. WHITE PINE COUNTY


i W. nave chosen % designate Ger
Tain rr<- wh,rh h.s come up for sdju
djcn.iop il ,r. -urreme Court of this
STATE. n. .nns.; such n title, IS ~
believe, NOR. fully Indicating the nature
Of the saId suit han Is conveyed in the
nam. given 10 :, In District Attorney
Mayenhanrn's BRET a copy Of which
lies before u. H. that instrument
gotten mp ~ The Reveills ONCE in
pamphlet form-,his csse 10 called
=. The Stare of Nevada e1 rel James NJ
D.wley vs.. Edwsrd Irwin" Some
srasures and ,nrrriInestions upon the
cover Of the pamphlet appriss Us that
this case hns been newly christened BY
subs,itu,ing the rxme Of Robert N
Clarke, Attorney General, for that of
James VI. Dawiey. There 10 q "brief
allusion" to this case in the Revsille Of
the 18th instant; and We are requested
TO give the same a place in our columns.
A. . matter of accommodation and
courtesy We do go Here it is:
This morning Mr.. Henry Mayenbaum. the
efficient District Attorney Of Lander county,
laid upon our table copy OF his brief for the
plaintiff in the case Of The State Of Nevada
a. rel James NJ. Dawley vs.. Edward Irwin,
in which hearing will shortly be had before
the Supreme Court Of the State. The plain
tiff, Dawley, is Sheriff Of Lander county, who
alleges usprpation Of his office against the
defendant, Edward Irwin, so-called Sheriff
Of so-called White Pine county. In plain
terms, the case is to ties: the constitutionality
Of the Act of the Legislature which created
and organized the county Of White Pine.
The brief Of District Attorney Mayenbaum
presents a formidable array OF precedents
and authorities against that Act, and in our
judgment his argument is conclusive. 1t 10
difficult to imagine that the Supreme Court
can sustain the Act Of the Legislature which
organized the county of White Pine In the
face Of the transparent, positive prohibitions
Of the constitution. Common report says
that nearly or quite every respectable lawyer
in this part of the State comedies that that
Act is unconstitutional. We have reason to
believe that this is the opinion of Judge
Beatty. Yet this same report adds-and this
is its offensive feature-that these attorneys
have expressed the belief that the Act will
be upheld by our highest tribunal ON the
ground Of necesslty-of public policy. We
resent this conclusion as impertinent. 1t 10
grossly unjust to the members fthe Supreme
Bench. They will no, be influenced BY the
plea Of public policy, OF ahy other improper
motive, to violate the clear provisions Of the
constitution. We await the decision OF the
Court with confidence.
We have glanced, hastily, over Mr..
Aayenbaum's brief and cannot help
regarding it as a very ingenious piece
of work and it 10 not TO be wondered
At that our friends of the Rsveille
should be so well pleased with ii.
Aside from the merits of this case
which We have neither time nor inelina-
ton (if we had the legal ability to
touch upou-we can merely assert tina,
our wishes are with the White Piners
for their success. We should regard II
IS grea, misfortune if the great and
growing interests of that sec,ios should
% assailed (as they would be, most
'iolently) by Il decision against the
'alidity Of tue law creating the nsw
county aod while We are ready to
.ccord display Of much ability upon
lr. Mayenbaum's part, We hope thar
is side of the case may suffer, at the
ands of the Supreme Court, a CON ple,e,
nal and utter defeat. i