Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1874-10-16
ANOTHER ATTACK REFUTED.

ANOTHER ATTACK REFUTED. 4
When either men or journals discuss q
particular subject, it is well for. them to
know something Of the matter which
hey are tilking or writing about, that
s if they wish to speak or write intelli-
gently or correctly. A lamentable in
stance of the mistakes and confusion
hat will inevitably follow. unless this
condition precedent obtains, is afforded
oy the Sacramento Union in its issue Of
he 10Th inst, wherein, In an article
headed Political Treachery," it pub
fishes charges against VIM. Sharon and
DR.. Hazlett, which ore without any foun-
dation whatever:
The man whom the Winnemucca con. |
vention nominated for Governor this |
year.. c. Hazlett-was q Republican
member of the Legislature of Nevada in |
1871 and 1878, pledged by his party to
the support of these same reforms to |
which he is now again pledged as Re-
publican candidate for Governor. Let
us compare his legislative Record with
his promises:
By reference to the Journal of the Sem
ate of Nevada, 9Th session, p. 245, We
find that this j. G. Hazlett introduced
Senate bill No. 1S9, being bill to grant
a subsidy of SIS, 900 to the Virginia and
Truckee Railway Company. We also
| find on page $50 Of the same journal that
j. G. Hazlett voted for the passage of
this bill.
Yes. DR.. Hazlett did introduce and
vote for that measure. and under these
circumstances. He was elected State
Senator as an anti-subsidy man, and op-
posed the granting OF subsidy to the
railroad on the ground that the road had
not reached that point of Lyon county
which the company had agreed and was
expected to do. A suit had arisen re.
specting the matter, and it was carried
to the Supreme Court, when that tribu-
nal decided that the railroad company
had not complied with its agreement as
to fix any liability on the county. At
the time, however, there was great de-
sire among the citizens of Lyon county
that the railroad should be extended to
distance OF Y. miles further, running
through Dayton to the Rock Point Mill,
on the Carson. So general was this
feeling that petitions were gotten up,
signed by the owners OF four fifths of the
taxable property within the county, and
q large majority Of the voters, urging
that power be granted of giving sub
sidy OF $4,000 on condition that the
line was extended as before described, or
that a subsidy of $4,000 should be
granted if the line was not extended.
This petition was sent to DR.. Hazlett
ing that it was his duty to give effect to
the wishes of his constituents, did so.
The bill passed the Senate, but was de.
feated in the Assembly. Surely, nc
blame could be attached to DR.. Hazlett
for complying with the express
desires of the community whom be
represented. 1t was his duty
so to do. The Union further says: "a,
the same session he voted contrary to his
pledge and to the decision of the Su
preme Court, for Humboldt county
railway subsidy of 100000" He did
so vote, and why? Because petitions
were sent up from that county in favor
of the subsidy, and it was supported by
the delegation. The people who were to
bear the burden desired to assume it,
because they thought thej advantages
overbalanced the cost. DR.. HaZlet
thought they were the best judges O.
their own affairs, and voted for tn,
N, aas-,-o .Lo-. --,-, & ~ -
PLANTATION applies to his vote on the cub
sidy from Eureka county for the Hum
boldt and Colorado River Railroad; from
White Pine and Elko counties to tn
Eastern Nevada Railroad; from Lande
county for branch from Battle Noun
tain to Austin; from Lincoln and Ny,
counties for the Humboldt and Colorado
River Railroad. In all these instance.
the bills were supported by petitions
from the respective counties and by thu
legislative delegations, Though DR.
Hazlett was an antisubsidy man, h,
thought the people of these counties ant
their representatives knew their Owl
business best-knew what was mos
likely to effectually promote their inter
ests-and that it did not become him tt
throw obstacles in the way Of providing
increased facilities for transportation il
certain sections where the people o
those localities expressed, in positiv,
terms, their wish to establish them. 81
much for his votes on these snbsid,
acts. In acting as he did he committed
no political treachery. In the one case
he obeyed the wishes of his constituents
in the others he offered no impeachment
to carrying out the desires of the citi
zens of other counties. Now, about the
tax matter, the Union says:
In tho session OF 1873, the Senate
passed bill (No. 1907 to release the
Central Pacific Railroad from the pay
ment Of $4,000 taxes due to Washoe
county. The bill was as clearly uncon-
stitutional rs unjust to the rest of the
taxpayers. 1t passed the Legislature
nevertheless, but the Governor vetoed
it. When it came up in the Senate for
passage, Notwithstanding the veto, Haz.
lett lodged the vote, rising from his seat
and leaving the Senate Chamber in great
haste, as we are informed by an eye-wit-
ness, and not voting, though his name
was called before he got out of the
chamber.
The facts are these: The Central
Pacific Railroad in Washoe county was