Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1880-09-01
Is He AN INHABITANT7


garding the status of Sharon's residence This
person is described by the editor in separate
paragraph a. ian esteemed correspondents
gentleman for years prominent in the politics
of this State, and who is noted for his indie
pendence of thought and action" Why
man of such prominence of thought and in
dependence of action should express his
opinions anonymously and in ambush is not
explained by the Enterprise.
Speaking Of Sharon's election six years ago
he says:
True, we have the authority of the Carson
APPEAL that he (Sharon) must be positive
inhabitant of the State. l suppose the AP-
PEAL editor will not deny that Mr.. Sharon was
such inhabltant when elected in 1874.
The writer confounds the APPEAL with the
Constitution of the United States. 1t is on
the authority Of the latter that the anti Sharon
men declare that he must be an inhabitant.
We are not discussing his candidacy of 1874.
At that time Mr.. Sharon was declared
citizen by large ma ority of the voting pep
ulation of Nevada, who thus made him their
agent for term of six years.
The above paragraph tends to suspicion
that the correspondent was not gentleman
''for years prominent in the politics Of the
State" or else he would ecollect that Sharon
secured his seat by very small maturity, by
which we mean that the members of the Ley
islsture who voted for him came mainly
from counties where they were elected by very
meager maj"rities. For a confederation OF
this the Enterprise writer is respectfully re-
ferred to the election returns.
l submit that, as a matter of law and of
common sense, as such agent he cannot lose
turn at any time. He registered and voted
as would any citizen who had been absent on
business of any other character.
How often has he registered and how often
has he voted Suppose that he had returned
and voted every year, which he has not done,
would that make him An inhabitantl He has
neglected to vote every year and thereby lost
his rights to citizenship which can only be re-
gained by six months residence. Sharon
has lost his residence and has not time to
qualify between now and election.
As well might person sent on foreign
mission forfeit his residence as has Sharon ny
his absence from Nevada. What has been the
practice Of Congressman from Nevada Is
Sharon 8 exception tn the general rule
Was Stewart resident of Nevada on he AP
PEAL basis after being elecr ed TO the Senate
How much time did Nye and Stewart exp-nd
in Nevada outside Of that Necessary to pro-
cure their re election.
Stewart was a bona fde inhabitant of the
State when elected. man who goes where
he is sent by his constituents or Government
loses no rights. Nye and Stewart went t"
Washington and remained there in the ser
vice of their constituents. Sharon went to
his home in California and devoted his time
solely to looking after his own private bust
ness, drawing $4,000 from the national
treasury for so doing. So conspicuous was
his absence from duty that he had great
trouble in drawing his money.
Norman lives in Nevada orts pleasures, and
a Senator of the United States is not expected
to spend his leisure in any particular locality.
Is it not fact, Mr.. Editor, that many of our
great statesmen procure residences IN Wash
ington and vicinity and never think of return,
ing TO their constituency until their term of
office expiresl
This certainly is fact and the voters of
Nevada would now be less inmical to Mr.
Sharon had he pursued the course so clearly
outlined by the Enterprise correspondent.
For instance Senator Sprague, of Rhode Is
land, spends most of his time in Washington
and has a splendid residence there. OF
course his constituents are satisfied, because |
Washington is the very place in which they |
have voted him to live. If he, on the CON
trary, spent the six years of his Senatorship |
in New Jersey, neglecting the business of his |
and looking after his own, ex
ectly as Sharon has done, the case would be |
different.
If by any act of commission or omission |
he has lost caste with the people of his State,
their only remedy is to refuse to renew his
They cannot rightfuiy charge
him with having forfeited his citizenship be-
cause he has not set himself down in Vir-
ginia, where he could not possibly advance
the interests of the State or serve any purpose
in the interests of his constituents.
If the writer Of the above would take the
trouble to carefully read, Section 3 Article /
IF the Constitution of the United States he
will see that the word ''citizen'' is not con-