Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1878-01-09
DQUIRSaING To SHIFT THE
RES PONAIBlL1TY.


It IL am sing to note the grand ana
lofty tumbling Of those who prevented
. reduction Of taxation at the last SEES
sion OF the Legislature. Having sad
died upon the people an unnecessary
burden falling little short of fire hum
d,ed thousand dollars fir the present
levy he moi reduced at the expense OF
an extra session. they now seek to shift
the responsibility. The Reno dzette,
d sheet la,nentably deficient in knowl-
edge, or honesty, or both, in dealing
with this question, is especially con
spicuous In this regard. Abiding to
the opponents Of the Compromise Bull
lon bill, it says: although not pos
sessing the strength to reduce the levy
they were strong enough to prevent
the passage Of the Compromise over
the Governors veto." Now, that is
Q bit of the most refreshing iDforma-
ton that We have run across in q mouth
of Sundays. Not strong enough to
reduce the levy! Will you have the
kindness Il name sn opponent of the
Compromise who advocated a reduc-
ton Of the levy? Don't you know,
and if you don't you had better con-
suit the record, that the Senate Com
mittee of Ways and Means intro
duced q bill to reduce the levy to IS
cents. Don't you know also that that
bill received the vote OF every Senator
who favored the Compromise, while
the opponents of the Compromise, al
most to q man, voted against it, except
Baker, who lodged. The bill passed
the Senate, went to the House; and it
having become apparent at this time
that the Governor would vetothe Com.
promise measure, was there defeated
but not without q strenuous effort or
the part Of anti Compromise members
to increase the levy to 81 instead of re-
ducing it 10 IS cents. Nor was this all.
The avowed policy of the Governors
faction was not only to raise the
levy, but also to pass a
bond bill providing for
loan of 500, 900, running q term Of
years. at ten per cent. per annum. A
measur of this kind was brought for
ward and pressed more than once by
the high pressure advocates, and it
was only due to the firm stand taken
by the friends of the Compromise that
the folly was not enacted into law.
This writer, il he is compelled to say
It for himself, is entitled to some
credit for squelching 1t. He believes
that but for his efforts the State rate
would have been increased to 81 90 or
ST 10, and an additional bonded debt of
500, 900 fastened upon the people. The
fight, presented in its true light, was
just this: The Compromise policy led
up to reduced taxation all around,
while the negation Of 1t meant higher
taxes and the addition of $500, 900 to
the States bonded debt. We favored
the low rate policy in the interest of
the people, and we would do it
again under the same state of facts.
1t was apparent to everybody that if we
could settle the suits which had been
appealed to the United States Supreme
Court by the bonanza companies, thus
insur;ng the collection OF the mining
tax in the future, there could be a gen
eral lighting of the burdens of taxation
on all classes of property. To bring
about this desirable result the Legisla-
lure proposed to ratify a plan Of settle
mont agreed upon between the finan.
cial officers Of the State and the mining
companies. The basis of the settle
ment was q modification Of the bullion
tax law; q Reconsideration of certain
grades Of ore; which would not have
affected the from that source
to exceed $45 900 annually at the rate
of production of bullion at that time.
It vas also proposed to throw off the
penalties incurred by the litigation.
This latter item was q few months later
cancelled by Governor Bradley, Gen.
eral Clark and other authorities and
attorneys representing the State.
And right here may we not ask
why it Is that the pro-bullionists
never say anything about this
Compromise? If these people in
authority were making y fight on prin
ciple, why did they not stay with it
Well, to conclude, time is demonstrat-
ing the correctness of everything
claimed in the contest by the support
ers Of the Compromise measure. They
said the treasury would be overflow.
Ing with money. That is SO. They
said the State had no occasion to Dor
row money. That is so. They said
the levy should be cut down. not
raised, on all descriptions Of property.
That il $50, as is exemplitisd by the clam
or throughout the State for an extra ses'
sion Of the Legislature to do precisely
what Governor Bradley and his ad-