Nevada County picayune., 1886-09-01
The Dispatch and Capt. Thomp'
 son.

let the community decide between Capt. Ansley and myself, as to that, I have to remark about It, however, in a general way, that a paper which undertakes to defend its positions, in political ccntro. vcrsy, by applying coarse and n- sultng terms to an individual, Slh- ply exposes the weakness ot It's cause.
 | stated in substance in my speech of August 9th, that Mir Bland, Democrat, when the Ora DO bill was pending, proposed to substitute for 1t a bill replacing the national bank circulation with United States treasury notes, re- deemable grecnbacks) and that fire of the nine Grccab0ckers then R Coa9reSs rotcd dgainst Mr. Blunt s proposition. In this l ain sustain ed by the Record. Now, l do not intend that this issue shall be changed to one of personal vitup- eration between Capt. Ansley and myself. I am not going to permit him to dodge the question in any
  such way. Let him meet the fact as have stated it, and as is shown to be true by the Record. Ii he cannot do that, the people are not going to accept his abusive Ian guage as an answer.
 If these leaders of the Green back faction had really desired to put it out of the power of national banks to contract aud expand the currency at will, and to prevent them from receiving interest on their bonds and on their circula- lion at tue same time, they should have voted for Mr. Bland $ subStl- ute, which, if adopted, would have prevented an extension of the charters of the national banks.
 Before concluding 1 wish to re- fer to another matter. Capt. Thomp- son attempts, in communication to the Dispatch, to defend his vote for the levee bond bill of 1871. Ills defense is, that the act of 1891 was amendatory of the act of 1863; that under the act of 1869 the ls- sue of the bonds was not limited, and the interest $ per cent; that under the act of 1871, for which he voted. the bonds were limited to &3. 100000, and the interest placed at per cent. The facts he states about these bills are true, but they make no defense for him. The outrageous act of 1869 should have been repealed without passing the S3.O0O .000 act of 1871. Capt. Thompson must have been in ia, yor of the act of 1871, without rc- gard to the act of 1869, because if he had not been, he would have asked for and insisted upon the re- peal of the act ot 1869, instead of amending it by the act of 1S1L But, from all that appears, Capt. Thompson did no such thing. It does not appear that he insisted upon. or even intimated, that the act 1869 ought to he repealed, with out substituting for it the act of 1871, by which the bonded debt of the State was increased some $3, 000,000. If Capt. Thompson had thus insisted upon the repeal oi the act of 1869 without sticking in its place the 33,00O,000 act of 1871, that would have been d defense for him in fact. But it appears that he did vote for the act of and it does not appear that he made any effort whatever to relieve the State from thls leyee bond burden, ny simply repeating the act of 1869 without passing the act of 1871. Capt. Thompson, in voting for the s. O00,00 act without making any effort whatever 10 strike the whole of this levee bond matter from the statute books Of the State, made himself responsible, to the extent of his vote, for the leyee bond debt. He cannot eS ape that re- sponslbIlity by Shuttiing the cards over and turning up the act of 1869 for trumps at this late day, That seems to be an after thought. It may be fairly inferred from all that appears, that he favored and would have voted for the ~3,000,- 900 act, even If the act of 1869 had never been passed.
 GEORGE r. SMOOTH.