Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1873-1877, 1873-03-20
THE GOVERNOR'S VETO OF THE
PALISADE RAILROAD BILL.
Following is copy of the Governors
veto of the Palisade and Eureka Rail-
STATE OF NEVADA,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

CARSON CITY, March Is, 1873.
Hon. J. d. Minor, Sec etd'y Of State:
SIR: have the honor to return herewith
without my approval Senate Bill No. 1888 An
Act to encourage the construction OF Hallroad
from the line Of the Central Pacific Railroad 10
the town of Eureka. State of Nevada. which
was received by this Department on the 9th
instant.
At the same time with the introduction and
rrosress of this Act through the processes oI
legislation to Its final passage, bill introduced
to serve the same purpose and accomplish the
same ends was introduced, considered and
passed. refer to Senate Bill No. 136. concern
ing the Eastern Nevads Railroad Company.
These bills were intended to create rival cor
porations which would tend to develop the same
section of Territory and to supply adjacent
MAJ kets. The routes traversed by the tracks OF
both roads if built would be parallel, and at no
point more distant from each other than forty
miles. Each road was seeking aid from the
counties through which it was intended to pass.
The amounts applied for were nearly the
same in each case. The question on the passage
of either bill was not seriously contested 1t
seemed that by some Arrangement entered into
between the friends ami supporters OF both
measures that the fnal question should be re-
ferred to the Executive tor decision. Their ar
engagements i'll this respect consider legitimate
and proper. 1 heither court nor avoid
the responsibility imposed BY sush e
reference. 1t was never expected mat both
roads would be built Ii completed competi-
ton between them would be alike rulnous to
both. In fact u single track will be amply able
to transact all the business OF eastern Nevsda
for many years to come In the solution OF the
question to which of the two deserve E1ecll-
tive approval have endeavored 10 Obtain al
possible information. The arguments which
have Influenced me to the decision at which /
have arrived. VIZ: To approve the one and reject
the other. the superior resources OF the
counties of Elko and White Pine over the coun-
tx OF Eureka to afford the aid guaranteed in the
respective bills. A brief summary OF tbs tax
able property in those counties. according to the
assessment rolls of 1872, gives the following
amounts
Eiko. =, DOL 800 40
White Pine. Observation-Disclosures. 1,12,al5 90
/
| 1t may be safely assumed that the taxable
property Of Eureka county does not exceed one
half of the total valuation of the late county Of
| Lander. That amount would be the srm OF 81
3S7 .279 %. 1t thus appears that community
| possessin only ons-third OF the amount of tax
| able property Of Elko and White Pine is COM
PEELED to incur q liability equal to more than
ene-fifth Of all its resources The crushing tax
alton which will be requisite to produce rev
enne adequate to the payment Of the annual IN
forest on the loan will repress and stife trade
| and exclude population. The mining and me-
| chanical interests will staSger and sink under
such an excessive burden Of taxation. In add
ton to tbs promptings of my own judgment, l
| have the welcome assurance that In my course
| upon this bill, am sustained by \ majority OF
the inhabitants Of the community. most inter.
ested. An extensive petition signed by the most
substantial citizens OF the town of Eureka, has
requested my Executive interference with the
passage of this bill. The sentiment OF the
press, Of the press Of the county is to the same
effect Whatever might have been my nrst i'm
preston upon this point. it must have yielded
10 such direct appeal from the ax-paylng resi-
dents Of Eureka county. have yielded read
Ter assent to their petition because this bill
alone of all those acted upon at the late session
lacked the indispensable provision to ubnit the
question of subscription to the body 81 the
people. L. H. bhAD1Ei-