Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1873-04-04
STATE OF NEvADA

ture from b Eureka-ElkO boundary
bill
STATE OF NEVADA,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.
CARSON CITY, March 8, 1873.
Honorable James II. Minor, Secre-
tary of State: Sir-I have the honor
to return herewith. to your office,
without my approval. Senate bill No.
261, "An act to define and establish
the boundary lines of Eureka county"
which was received by this depart
ment on the 9Th instant.
The object of the bill seems to be
the cessloD of a portion of the territory
now comprised within the county of
Elko. No reason therefor appears
upon the face of the bill. After in
quiry, it has been ascertained that no
petitions or other evidences of the
wishes OF the inhabitants of the Sec
ton sought 70 be coded were presented
to the Legislature at the past sess on.
No arguments of general convenience
have been made to appear. Proximity
to the place of transaction of public
business cannot have actuated the
passage of the bill, because Elko is
equally if rot more accessible than
Eureka. Further, the bill attempts a
transfer Of a considerable fraction of
the taxable property Of Elko, without
the assumption of an equivalent por-
ton of the public debt. No law upon
this subject has eve been enacted
without provision being made for the
appOrtiOnment of the liabilities OF the
parent county.
l am confident in the opinion that
no measure beneficial to the genera
public will Re accomplished by the
approval of the bill, l therefore de-
cline to give my assent to the Same.
l.. II. BRADLEY.
There is not one single word of
truth in the whole Of the above docu-
ment. Almost every man living
within the limits of the territory pro-
posed to be coded petitioned for the
passage of the bill. The said petitions
were duly laid before the Governor.
Furthermore, the bill was not seri,
ously opposed by the representatives
of Elko in either House. On the ON
trary, they agreed to the cession. AS
{, the matter Of public convenience,
everybody knows that the people of
Mineral Hill and vicinity would be a
great deal better suited if Eureka was
their county-seat instead of Elko. 1t
is absolutely impossible for them to
reach Elko by any travelled route,
without passing for a considerable
distance through Eureka county.
There is a daily stage running the year
round between Mineral Hill and
Eureka, thus insuring direct commu-
nication between these points at all
times, and without any inconven-
fence whatever. The message states
that II law upon this subject has
ever been enacted without provision
being made Tor the apportionment Of
the liabilities of the parent county,"
A o impudent and unblushing
falsehood was never uttered. The
Governors memory must be very
short. A bill almost identical with
the one under notice was passed at
the late session giving Lander county
a strip of territory from Humboldt
county. 1t is possible that there was
not the difference OF an acre in the
amount of territory proposed to
be coded oy these bills. Hum
boldt's delegation in the Senate was
divided on the subject, and Varian
stated on the floor that the people had
pronounced at the last election in his
county Enthusiastically against it.
There were no petitions praying for
its passage. Neither did Lander as
sumo any part of the Indebtedness of
county, Notwithstanding
"a considerable fraction of the taxa
bic property" OF the latter was trans
ferred to the former. Still the Gov
ernor signed this bill without a mo-
ment's delay. But why spend time
in showing up his glaring inconsistent
cies. 1t is a fact, susceptible of proof
by some of the most respectable wit
nesses in the State, that the Governor
openly announced prior to the introduce
ton Of the JiN that he would veto the
Mineral Hill cession. When asked
for q reason, he said that he thought
the taxes would be higher over
IN the new county,
to which his ranches and bulls would
be transferred by the passage of the
bill. We gather some little consola-
ton, however, from a knowledge of
the fact that II taxes are only So 05
Oh each one hundred dollars, while
in Eiko county property holders are
reuuired to ante 50 IS Oh a similar
amount.