The Courier. (Genoa, Nev.) 1899-1904, 1902-10-31
Carson Letter.

newspapers of Nevada. What does it
mean? Have any of the nominating
conventions been SO derelict in their
duty as. to nominate some men without
principles? certainly take it to mean,
in part, that the principles advocated
by the Democratic party are superior
to those of the Republican party for
miners and farmers, as well as stock
men, because the shibboleth is 'sprin-
ciples," first; but there seems an evil
dent demand that the character of the
men who are going to carry out those
principles should not be inquired into
should not be mentioned, on the
ground that the principles are SO great
that we can afford to subserve every
thing else to them. But suppose the
nominating conventions had given US
linen" as we'll as principlesl 1t would
seem that combination of first-class
principles and good men would be ir-
resistible, and would need no advocacy
whatever, to say nothing of apology
for ''men." The leaders in the nomi-
mating conventions could have been
possessed of but little principle, If they
jeopardized principle by the nomi-
nation of linen" whose principles re-
quire any apology. 1t is well recog
nized rule among historians and phil
osophers that bad laws in the hands of
good men is not as bad for people as
good laws in the hands of bad men.
Why will not the same rule apply in
the case under discussion? don't say
that any bad men have been nominated;
but do say that if none but good men
have received nomination, the war cry
should be principles and men,"
The Democratic and Silver party
press of Nevada is to be congratulated
In their discussion of the issues of the
day, pretty generally; but some of
them are guilty of one attack, which I
consider wrong. E. s. Harrington is
attacked for prosecuting the railroad
strikers in 1894, and Judge Hawley is
attacked for trying them. A few rail-
road strikers were duly indicted in 1894
by a Federal grand jury of the crime
of obstructing the U. s. mails and for
the commission of certain acts of vio-
lence in doing SO, such as disabling en-
gines, etc. What was wrong in pros
ecuting men for that? Does the fact
that they belonged to powerful Union
make any difference as to the criminal
character of their act, if guilty? I say
that Mr.. harrington was entitled to
credit for prosecuting the charge, and
remains entitled to credit because he
tried the case fairly and impartially,
and performed his duty, without fear
of punishment for so doing But is
Unionism going to punish him for it?
Is it part of the precepts and teachings
of Unionism to punish men who at
tempt to carry out the law, within the
pale of the law? VIII Unionism dare
proclaim that they are organized for
such work? On the contrary, Unionism
has proclaimed, through John Mitchell,
that it is organized to protect property,
and to obey and respect the law, and
to do all in their power to prevent
overt acts on the part of unreasonable
and excitable members. There is moth
ing that John Mitchell feared so much
as violence during the last strike, and
nothing that the mine owners prayed
30 much for. therefore say that the
appeal to prejudice to vote against Mr..
harrington because he prosecuted the
strikers is unworthy, and the sooner it
lis dropped the better it will be for
"principles." Mr.. Harrington is on
the wrong ticket, the principles of
which are against the material inter-
ests of Nevada, and that is all that can
fairly be said against him as far as 1
know.
The condition of the reopened an