Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1877-07-13
THE BosKo.eERsTLE IMBRoGI1o

Herewith we present tho communication
promised in our issue Of yesterday
Editor Appeal. In your local columns of
to-day appears what I assume to be the an
swer of one or more of the County Commits
sioners to my query in the Tribune OF yester-
day. The closing words, Fiat clothing
store ruat Gerstle," contains the animus
which caused the unfair statements pervading
the whole paragraph. We are told that Bosko,s
clothing store must be sustained by the OH
cial power of the county though it ruin Gerstle.
So frank statement of the situation was
hardly to have been expected. Is there no
other pretence of justification than the fore
going for the official attempt to deprive
brakeman of the good will attached to his
business by virtue of his old and established
location2 Is Mr.. Gerstle an intruder Did he
not purchase the business and location in the
county building of Mr.. Rosenstock} Is he to
be oppressed because not one Of the Oldest IN
habitants of Carson2 Further Did MIR.
Bosko obtain his present location IN the
county building by lease from the county, or
by suitcase from Mr.. Rosenstock4 Is the
county to save Bosko from his own contract
with private individual, viz, Rosenstock.
viii the Hon Board of Commissioners show
wherein Mr. Gerstle is not legltlmately
tenant of his store as Bosko is of his z Will
they give good reasons for denying to Mir.
GerstIe the fair consideration usually accorded
q regular tenant2 Is there no straightforward
answer to these and many other questions
that naturally suggest themselves! Let US
know, Mr. Editor, from the Honorable gen
tlemen of the Board, something tangible and
authentic about the "previous arrangements
that are to be so strictly carried out, g ruat
Gerstle" Let US have fair play The Board
can rightfully act only as representatives OF
the county at large, and their private friend
ships and animosities should be kept out OF
the business. Respectfully, Citizen.
July 18th. 1877.
Now let US premise our final answer to
these questions by saying that this is the ''pos-
itively last" In the first place we have no
notion of advertising Mr.. Gerstle gratuitously;
and in the second place plain statement OF
the facts, or an outline of the facts IN the case
must be held conclusive, so far as this discus
sion as a matter for the occupancy OF space IN
the MORNING APPEAL is concerned. Now
here comes Mr.. Gerstle by his Attorney and
saws that he assumes that the answer winch
appeared in these columns to some statements
in the Tribune was the answer OF one or more
of the County Commissioners. The assump-
ton is a natural one, but 1t Is wholly gratul-
tous and without foundation in fact. What
was stated was stated by the writer of this
(the editor of the APPEAL) upon the statement
of Bosko made prior to the issue OF the Irlb-
me containing the statement in question.
This Is immaterial one way or the other !;
but facts are facts. The pretty bad joke
which has been magnihed into such bugaboo
WAS. we are somewhat ashamed TO confess
wholly our own-tho' we do believe that, bad
as it is, it is as good as any County Commits
sioner could do under the circumstances. The
anirnus of it is, however, as We are free to adj
nit, more than willingness on our part to
help Bosko who is a live, liberal minded, adj
vertising merchant, to get the better OF his
stingy neighbor on the corner who does not
advertise The APPEAL stands by its friends.
Now as to all the sentiment lugged into this
matter We have simply to say 1t is all bosh.
As between Bosko and Gerstle, it Is SQUAD
BILE between two different sets and kinds of
Hebrew merchants; and it illustrates, i'll
small way, how little danger the Stewart es-
tate is in from any combined Jewish move
ment in resentment of Judge Hiltons sharp
dealings with Seligman. And now about the
County Commissioners and their part III this
matter: Yesterday we had a quarter hours
talk with one of the Board upon the subject,
lust to refresh our memory of the facts IN the
case. Here they are as nearly as our recol-
lection serves US, in outline
First, the whole corner, that is to say the
APARTMENT now divided in twain and occupied
variously by Bosko and Gerstle, was
leased, under the old Board to Joe Rosen-
stock for 1925 per month, with the stlpula-
ton that he should not sub-let any part OF 1t.
Second. Rosenstock did sub-let the south
half of the property to Stern & Boskowitz for
800. This left his corner costing him go
ner month. In his written suitcase to Stern
& Boskowitz he stipulated that there should
be no clothing" sold in the corner part dur
inc the term of the said suitcase. Rosen-
stock himself opened haberdashery in the
corner. He finally sold out to Gerstle,
clothing merchant whereat Bosko, who IN
the meantime had bought ont his partner,
Stern, complained but he could get no re-
dress.
Thirdly. After the difference which arose