Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-11-30
HOME RULE IN NEVADA.

In response to an article on the attitude
of Mr.. Cassidy in this paper, the Winnie
mucca (Nev.) SHrer State says;
While it is a fact that Mr.. Cassidy, in his
speeches before the election, advocated
"Home Rule" and the defeat of the i'm
ported candidate for Senator, 1t is fiction to
assert that he is doing so now. AS soon as
the result of the election was known, Mr..
Cassidy abandoned the home rule principle
which he advocated during the campaign,
and through the columns of the Sentinel
advised the Democratic members of the
Legislature to form no coalition with the
"Home Rule" Republicans to defeat MIR.
Stewart, unless their candidate pledged sup
port to an Administration which appoints a
carpet-bagger to one of the best Federal offices
in Nevada. This unexpected change in Mr.
Oassidy's principles may have escaped the
notice of the DEMOCRAT, but it is neverthe-
less true, as the columns of the Eureka
Sentinel since the election clearly prove. If
the sack will have to be brought into re-
QUESTION to the Legislature to elect Mr..
Stewart, ii certainly will not be the fault of
Mr.. Cassidy, as he has not given aid or COM
fort to the "Home-R Rule cause" since it was
ascertained that the next Legislature will be
Republican, in fact, his course, as indicated
by the Sentinel, which he has given its
readers to understand is now edited by him,
is exceedingly inconsistent and wholly in
explicable to those who heard him advocate
"Home-R Rule" before election.
The DEMOCRAT had noticed the attitude
OF Mr.. Cassidy upon this question, and in
purely political point of view, believes
he is right. Mr., Cassidy correctly asserts
that the Democratic members OF the
Nevada Legislature are under no obliga-
tons to help the Republicans out OF bad
scrape, by assisting to elect some member
OF that party who would add to, instead
of diminishing the strength OF the opposi-
ton in the State. He believes that the
election of Mr.. Stewart would insure q
up4Jcratic victory in Nevada two years
hence, and for that reason, while admit
ting his personal preference for some
resident Republican, will not advise the
Democratic minority to hazard the
chances by aiding movement calcu-
lated to strengthen the cause OF the
enemy, who will be held responsible by
the people for their action. II, on the
~sasssssslsees.a, ,>sssA~&ssAgsre-seit $4Tl tnfrer
should go to the rescue, it would be M
more than justice or judicious party pol
icy to exact the most favorable terms pos
sible for the interest OF the Democracy o
the Nation, il not for the local organiza
ton OF the State. The fact that Mr.
Cleveland has appointed a carpet-baggel
to one OF the best Federal offices in Ne
vada, cuts no figure in this contest. Tha
is matter for the delegates from tina
State to the next National Convention tC
consider, and doubtless it will be re
membered at the proper time. TIL,
DEMOCRAT can discover no inconsistenc,
in Mr. Cassidy's position now as com
pared with that which he occupied prio
to the election. The "Home Rule" issu
was made in the interest of the Democ
racy. The Democratic members wer
elected upon that issue. They will hav
performed there duty when they vote 10
resident Democrat for United State
Senator. Ii they conclude to join with
Republican minority to avert politica
disaster to that party, they would b
foolish not to exact the best possibl
terms for their side of the house, bot
nationally and locally That is the tru
Democratic business, as the Senator's
fight stands at present in Nevada