Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-11-19
THE ENTERPRISE.
More of Its Mad rawlings and
Ts1jrdjp nrnle.

i"'"'lc Dr"'e'
Inc territorial enterprise comes 10 the
scratch again in its issue of Thursday and
,,,or, hro so.ond robosb ~ tho
-
preliminary examination III the hnueisoh-
Reek case, that Reek fired the first shot.
It's effort 10 "a cheeky as il ia %"ghoulish.'
M. -. .a..:ma. 10, ,,roadu ham
no "noio ''i' ~
given to the readers OF the SENTlNEL YER
batim, as taken down from the lips of the
witnesaes The Same was reviewed fairly
- 80 10
Ill SeS'oiu"S . oENiiNhh' NV neeN
produced any more. The Enterprise
article of Thursday is, in fact, but little
or hon roiara.ior of what was rom
49,,
taihed IN lts articie Oh the uay Deioie' Wv ~
would not De notlced were III ho' " "
scandal upon this community al laree'
ana us unJourhallstic ASSAULTS upon nc ui
tam citizens OF Eureka. IL says .1he
District Attorney OF EUREKA County was d
candidate on the ~hepublican eta1e tcket
lor Attorney-ueherai' anu was mantnusny
700 pussy loohihs aiter hiS o"n P oiie
fortunes during the canvass 10 vie0rousiy
push tue prosecution OIL l'eeh' ms 10
an unjust imputatloh upon u 1ai'niui
o1hcer. Judge davenport eIe Dls'lios
Attorney was NOT IN Town aS the tne ",
the shooung' u was repieSen'eo
by MS deputy, John naAe4'
VINO Vigorously looheu up tno All
III tne case ana ssouiIu
available testlhiohy; aiVel "nion no wei.
nllnseil ana s"ore ou' " onp''inV "o"in'S
neck. upon Jud8e DaSeppoiIs afil.ai
non,e Ut 'ooh Ieiu VI u aoo aDnS ~
MS dePuty, MI Ddher' anu '".i'neo,
uia everything III 'he pie
uinl ny la"' .io o.ue a
thines, 10 secure al 'r" s'"'o,
inen' iiohn hhuei'oh, " W. ~
yesterday he laliea u hls ehoi's' IN .ne
pre'i,hinaty sAaip.ha.lon ne aPPs"nou VI
iclaiiy iof .he o'a'e' Nv 49, III .,aoien.
slouSiy' oue III Valh' y oTotTe unioien
testimony 10 prove meek suli's VI lit oi4Ahe
charsed.
WIN regard 10 'ne ABUSIVE ian5uaSo u
tie enterprise sucn as supp 'u''i1e VI
lit react, DoSpo,ly' ~, noeans
heeu oe saia lurther ,han W o"ii .V.entioi'
~ INC lacl lhaV 'he Hn'9ip eui'ot ntus'
peen s"uiy III ""n'o VI a,sua,' =. e,s1
ne he'er would nave . ~ W suoh
sculFy ueianiatloh Vi an eSVinl"pto mai.
Inc Lh'efprlse "ohuois why Nv piouulS
were not p~rodace IN eVldehce' anu 'hilNs
inncn couId lave been uettFniinGu ny
scfutirlZlnS them. Inc lac' Is the pls-
tois were produced III evluelsoe' ms,
were examined, aho IL was lou"u 'na'
seven shcts mao peen hreu ai'ooe.lei, Two
rom AhdGisoh "eaPon anu NY hioH
heeh B. lhls was all the material cyl
oehce that couid Dc e2erac'eu lfou 'he
pistols.
me enterprise runs on At great fate'
and finds fault that the witnesses Tor the
defense were not sulncientiy croSs-exam-
med. There was no good to De accom-.
by extended cross-eXamlnatlon OF
these witnesses, as their testimony was
direct and positive that Anderson hred the
shot. Their statements were so clear
and sharp on this point that any effort to
break down their testimony would have
been not only useless but silly.
The Enterprise thinks a great many
more witnesses might have been produced
for the prosecution. Living here in the
midst of the circumstances, we have heard
Of none such, while we know of several
for the defense who would swear
positively to the point in issue, were there
second hearing of the case. While but
lew persons saw the beginning of the fight,
a great many saw the latter part of it, but
their testimony would be immaterial and
worthless.
AS an illustration of how wide of the
the Enterprise is likely to go in its
pretentious analysis of the Anderson-Reek
case, at a distance of 800 miles from the
of the tragedy. we NAV cite d quota