Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1874-09-26
FEW FACTS.

Inc Enterprise Is III q IL
is Ignorant OF the distinction between
the amendment aud the repeal OF an
act; it is uniuformed of the threatened
measure to deprive Eureka, Lander,
and portions of Humboldt and Elko,
Of their existing interests in the
property of the Central Pacific; it
has culpably forgotten, or perhaps was
never informed of the fact the bill ced-
ing a specified portion of Elko to Eu-
reka is now on file i'm the office of the
Secretary of State, and in due order of
business will he passed upon by the
coming Legislature during the first
days of the session; it docs not under
stand that the main issues of the a
tional campaign are summed up in the
phrases Z" hard money" low tariff"
:. states rights" and "anti- national
bank"
We will endeavor to enlighten the
Enterprise on some of the points al
luded to in the declaration of
principles OF u County Convention.
During the last session of the Legi>la-
ture a bill was introduced and-in the
latter days of the session passed.
unanimously by both branches of the
Legislature. ceiling to Eureka that
portion of Elko wherein now lies the
Palisade and Eureka Railroad. The
bill was supported by every represen-
tative and Senator alike of Elko and
Lander counties. and a petition was
presented signed las we believe) by
very property-holder in the proposed
ceded territory, praying for the ccs-
sion. The reason is manifest. The
business and ~pecuniary interests of the
PEG ole of Mineral Hill and Pine Val
lev require their union with Eureka.
The bill was vetoed by the Governor
after adjournment. ard under the OPP
Grafton of law, must be presented to
the Legislature at the next session, for
consideration. Are not the people of
Eureka justified in demanding a per-
fectins of the bill which was agreed
upon by all interests involved as just
and fair, AMI which-but for the adj
journmenl of the Legislature would
now be the law of the lanl? Is there
any inconsistency i'll demanding that
a new county, depriviny Eureka.
Lander, the western portion of Elko,
and the eastern portion of Lander of
all their railroad interests shall not be
created? We ask for the enforcement
of a fair and honorable and executed
contract, and for protection against
projected injury.
As TO the bullion tax: The distinc-
ton between the repeal and the amend
ment of IA law is manifest to anybody
but the Enterprise. We know not one
citizen of this State-unless, indeed, it
may be VIM. Sharon-who favors a
repeat of the act taxing the gross
proceeds of mines. But the present
law operates unequally, and i'll its inc
quality particularly Expresses the peo-
pie ofthi> section and thereby retards
our prosperity and seriously affects our
present interests, We ask for, and. as
a measure of right, we insist upon
such an amendment of the law as will
equalize taxation. We remember, mo-
many months since, to have heard Il
gentleman, at present connected with
the Enterprise, go atlarge into the mer-
its OF this tax law. \. full discussion
would far exceed the limits ola newSpa-
per article, and We sugyest to him that
he so far inform his associates as
10 prevent any recurrence OF such 4
blunder as that in Wednesdays issue
Of the Enterprise. The article could
not have emanated from his pen, for
we have always known him as a man
of good education. of fair information
and of warm heart. lie could not SO
far stultify himself as to indulge in
false English, in distorted statement of
fact in Illogical conclusions AMI in dia-
tribes against a gentleman, formerly
his personal opponent, whom he knew
to be absent from the State in the full
fillnlent of a most painful duty.