The Pioche record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1908-1925, 1911-05-27

r oNE-cHiEF EXECUTIVE MADE
ROWING MERlToRious MEASURE.
terms Of the settlement Of he finan.
ciai affairs between the two coun-
tics should be made under the terms
2f = said crisia2l aat, a2pro ~
February 8, 1902, ard ii jast set-
tlsmsnt canEot be arrIvsa at by
mat@ai a5secmsnt, tien adjudication
should be made by the COURTS and
not by the legislature"
Now, If the constitution confined
us to the terms of the original Act,
SD ii yslr veso message had taat ID
llat''if just settlement cf the mat
ters included within the orisi a. Alt
c.-lnot 10 arrived at by mut1ai agree
ment, then adjudi aticn of any or
~. II Gaia matters included with
IN said original Act Should le made
by the courts and net by the Isgis-
70 we W I'D yree with such gen
eral proposition, II there were spch
condition existing, involving pre-
\ a q.ie. ticn of i,erpr tsticn OF the
said original act, we trust we would
not have been SO foolish as to seek
legislative action at the last session.
,far such action would have baen
a plain Invasion by the legis!atiye
branch Ct the state government of
prerogatives of the judicial branch
But t Us impress upcn you most EN-
phatically that no such condition ex-
lists, or has existed. There is not
now, nor has there ever been, any
dispute between the two counties rel
ative to any matter included witeir
the terms OF the said original Net
The contention of Lincoln county Is
simply this: That while the origi
~. NJ nrryides an equitable pro
rata division of moneys, adjustmen;
OF other property rights, and an equit
able app -rtionment of the indebted
ness known as the bonded indebted
ness of Lincoln county existing at the
time when the original Act became
effective, 1t FAILS UTTERLY TO
PROVIDE FOR ANY APPORTION-
MENT OF THE FLOATING INDEBT
EDNESS OF THE PARENT COJN
TY, existing at said time In other
words, the legis. ature failed to Gre
ATE into legal obligation the moral
OBLIGATION of Clark county to pay It's
equitable portion Of the Indebtedness
OF said class, for which it had re-
ceivei comm ensurate benefits. Ills
the persons who framed the origina
Act claim was an oversight, uninten
tional both on their part and on thG
legislature.
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
We cannot see by what process oi
reasoning you state, in regard to this
natter involved. that IF just settle
mcnt cannot be arrived at by mutu
al agreement, then aijudicati I
saoulo pe made ty the courts anc
not by ;he legislature" For. IL YOU
visw is correct that the origina'
Act is the sole legal basis Of settle
ment and that a subsequent Act
treating CT any additional mater
would be unconst titutional and voit
as oontravening some vested righ
0. Clark county, 1t would follow
that judgement or decree OF {
court in favor OF Lincoln count,
would be doubly unconstitutional anC
void, as it would not only contraven
tt same fancied right but it woult
a,so he an unconstitutional attemp
on the part Of such court to lsgis
late, when that function belongs ex
clusiyely to the legislature. Frcn
your standpoint, Lincoln count.
would have about as much chan Q t,
win in court as an apricot to bloom
In q field Of ice,--yet you assum
that IL the legal situation were a
you state it to be she would be fol
ish enough to not arrive at a settle
mont and to attempt legal impos
si5ility. namely, to bring hers If witt
in the jurisdiction of court upo
such a cause of action.
LEGAL PHASE OF 1T
Let us now present our side
the legal question. and prefatcr
! thereto, permit us to state that y
do not question your purity Of M
, i've. CIR sincerely Of purpose, in tll
> position you took in your veto me