Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1886-07-15
4 PeRPLEXINC SITUATION.

nlexing and unpleasant state OF at
fairs than the attempt on the part
of the people Of Carson to solve the
Chinese question.
The majority of the people OF
this city think alike upon the prln-
chile of the thing, but differ upon
the method of accomplishment.
Because there is an honest dif-
ference Of opinion as to methods
there should certainly be no trouble
between men because these differ
ences of opinion exist.
1t is time that the town should
cease to be shaken up with charges,
counter charges. rows, hard feeling
and boycott over this question.
Some eight hundred men signed
an agreement to discharge their
Chinese help. Most of US have
kept this pledge. Many citizens
who are just as earnest in the anti
Chinese cause as anybody, say:
I'VE agreed TO discontinue the
services Of the Cinnamon when we
signed the Covenant, but we did
not bind ourselves to compel 9TH
ers to do it
Many people naturally shrank
from placing themselves in an attl
tude of debating to their neigh
bors. and it is unfair to ask any
one to assume that attitude.
The League has allowed itself to
he carried away from the main Is
sue. The origina! issue was war
upou the Chinese, but the Leasue
has begun a fight upon three other
things:
The V. & T. X. r. Company.
The Republican party.
The Tribune.
We do not believe that vote OF
the eight hundred signers OF the
Covenant today would endorse the
policy of aggre ssiveness against
any of these institutions.
The r r. Company are not now
employing any Chinese, but on the
contrary are giving employment to
over 100 white men at the highest
wages paid on any road In the
world. A removal of the K. X.
Company's depot and car shops
from this city would be much
worse injury to this city than the
closing of the Mint.
The Republican party of this
city has never opposed the anti'
Chinese movement as Is evlnced by
the fact that a majority OF the
signers are Republican.
The Tribune took stand against
the movement in manner when
was offensive to the League. Ii
did not discuss the matter fairly
and there were occasional personal
ties in its columns which incensed
members of the League.
A majority of the Executive
Committee decided to boycott the
paper.
This was an ill-advised action
because it was an attempt to curtal
the liberty of the Press.
IfIndividual members feltagrleved
at unjust and unfair criticism they
had a right to discontinue their
support of the paper giving ofense
but they had no right to insist that
other people should do it. Ii the
paper misrepresented facts these
Misrepresentation could lnjure no
body. The boycott placed members
of the League in an unpleasant pc
sitlon.
A business man SAID to th'
writer Yesterday: IF | advertise IL
the Tribune I will lose at leas
twenty customers. If | remove my
advertisement | shall lose as many
more.
Either course he pursued woule
result in loss to him of say $2Jt
month. This man was an earnes
consistent member of the League
and had made personal sacifices fol
the cause. Now we submit it t,
any candid man if is not an imposi
tion upon any business man in Car
son to place him in such an uncom
Portable dilemma.
Men insist upon placing a citi
zen in such position tina
M maftar bnu ha tnrn- h