The Pioche record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1908-1925, 1912-10-26
Not Single Valid Reason For It's Removal
Many Reasons For It's Retention In Phoebe



cate office holders are In eontr1l.
On separate sheet circulated
With the address. six reasons were
Giyen why the County Seat should be
removed The first has no weight,
because none can deny thai they
would prefer to spend month in
pioche, rather than oae night in Cal
ieAtc. and because il the ,Xpens, O
keeping indlgents is less at Galien,c
they can be kept there, as they are
tat present, Wi hout moving ,he
| County Seat The second ara ,tlant
is futile because Pioohe il a railrcad
terminal of more importance than q
water tank junction; because IT is
much mare convenient to the majOrit
0t AGRICULTURAL sections OF the Coun-
ty tnAn is Caliente. and because Pi-
Cohe receives at ast two carloads
Of freight 10 every one billed To Cal
enie. The third argument is a mere
|
fact The iourth is iamaterial an6
| irrelevant because there will be no
County Buildings constructed al Cal.
iente. The fifth has been refuted in
detail above. The sixth argument
was answered before it was propaund
ed, IA the literature Of the Publicity
Commit ee. the present Court House
meets ali necessary requirements.
None as good not TO mention one
lar superior" could ever be CON
structed lJr the sum of $4,000 and,
lnstead OF taxes being mateflallyrc
} duced, IL the County Seat were re.
, moved, the taxpayers would undoubt
r edly be burdened with an additiona
debt of not less than $le,o00, not
! With5tandlng promises that may hay,
been made in good faith to the con
I trary.
We feel confident that we would
! Je able to retain the County Seat
I in Phoebe IL we could do no more
e Jhan answer any and all arguments
| brought forward by Calicnte. Bu,
; We can DO mare-we can give many
sound reasons which the interested
parties at Caiiente do not attempt Il
I dispute We do not question the
. right OF Caliente or any other town
- endeavor to secure the County
I 3eat--it the majority Of the people
s IN the county think it should be
uoved Bat when the issue waa
$ clearly Sc forth in the Primaries
q With THE result thai the Senatorial
l. candidates in favor o. removal wer,
l. leatan 2SU to 2ll, ana the candidate
or the Assembly VINO were plcdegc
e 10 remove il suffered even wors,
G lefeat, 459 to 332. all loyal ctizenl
l. u IN County viii resent the effort
y If a few 10 ignore the wishes Of tn
It many and insist on its renova
Il from County view the qlestio
i. was--would there be any benefit Dc
. lived by the County AZ 4 whole
II .ner, should be no change II
!! would only benefit one pa"icula
# lWn, Undoubtedly the greater popl
N alton was in the northern part {
20 the County and, unless there W:
N .ood reason for a change, 1t woul
Is iDpear uscl1ss t. impose extra mil
e. lge upno thoee making trips to II
n lounty scat The County answer
III n SHALL NOT BE REMOVED,
re People have invested money
as this part Of the County, with Il
MS lea that the County Sea. is Il mo
lt r les permanent Institution and II
&c me to be passed around by the wh
iix : a few people. The injury to /
de oche would be far in excess Ct Il
he benefits TO Caiient, because {
Iii property there is owned by Compal
on lively few people, most Ct the re
lents there are tenants, and the hi2
.ol + rent to pay would b. tneir sRa
rat IF the benefits derived. One If {
N 'alient.. candidates recently ma
ef The flattering suggestion that Pioc
at ii not need tie County Seat
st ,iew of its present prosperity; b
Pc zen il We do not need it, We f,
.nt hat we should ratain It in justice I
he pnly to those V no have invested he
IAN out 10 the balance Of the Coun
Ing which wants il here.
r We must admit there are tin
ger when It becomes advisable TO mo
Ter. l County Scat. but the present
in not such an instance. Under exist
) che conditions, no better place than