The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1914-10-31
ODD|f'S final
WORD TO VOTERS

Sdrson City, NeVaud, Oct. 20, 1919.
To the Voters of Nevada:
] have made my fight for reelection
in the open and / have made clean
fight. | have not told one man one
thing to gain his vote and another
man the contrary to gain his vote.
But / have told all men the same
thing and there is neither doubt nor
misconeeption in the mind of any
voter as to where I stand on every
important public question.
Gambling and Divorce.
The paramount issue in this cam
paign is whether wide-open gambling
and easy divorce will again be legal
ized. Mr.. Boyle declares that these
are dead issues. Meanwhile the
corpses of these dead issues are wan
dering through every street, alley
and by-way of every city, town and
hamlet of the state enthusiastically
rallying their advocates and whisper
ing the name of Boyle as the candi-
date who, if elected, will not veto any
legislature may pass. The gambling
and divorce issues are dead and Mr..
Boyle is dumb. But silence has its
eloquence. And no man will get past
the people of this state to the COVER
norship because he is silent on the
gambling and divorce issues and near
sighted as to what is now transpiring
in relation thereto.
The New Prison Episode.
Mr.. Boyle has complained that /
misrepresented him when / charged
that he supported the scheme TO sad
die on this state in 1910 a $355,000
new prison He claimed that he is
entitled to the credit of killing the
new prison scheme by advising me of
what I already knew and every citizen
in the state knew at the time. But
when I put the question to him why,
when the law only called for $780,
900 new prison and specifically limit
ed the total expenditures, call and
singular" to that sum (Sec z, Chap
ter CXXXT, Statutes of 1909) second
case of silence occurred
The Tax Bill
Mr.. Boyle declared to the taxpayers
that what he terms the Oddie tax bill,
introduced in the Legislature of 1911,
was Southern Pacific measure be-
cause it merely proposed to assess
the railroads four per cent of their
gross earnings. I have in my posses
sion a statement prepared by the Ne
vada Railroad Commission at my re-
quest at the time, showing the COM
'parative revenue the four per cent
gross earnings basis would bring into
the state and counties for the pre-
vieus year, 1910, as compared with the
total assessment actually collected
that year. That statement shows
that in round numbers the Southern
Pacific paid in taxes to the state and
counties in 1910, $295,000, but that if
the four per cent gross earnings basis
were in force it would have paid
$4s0,000 in taxes. I quoted these
figures and the Nevada Railroad Com
mission as authority in my special
messagepto the legislature of February
90, 1911. For the information of the
late member of the Nevada Tax Com
mission I will say that the four per
cent gross earnings basis of railroad
taxation is in operation in California
under the Johnson regime, which has
not been, so far as know, success
fully accused of being unduly favor
able to that company. 1t may here be
proper to mention that Mr. Boyle's
assessment of railroad property in
1913 failed by considerable of reach
ing the four per cent basis which he
deplores as evidence of pro-railroad
leaning I trust that Mr.. Boyle will
not have any loss of speech in rushing
to an explanation of this inconsis-
tency.
Irrigation Liquidation
Mr.. Boyle, in his speech at Love
lock and Winnemucca, declared that
his water bill which passed the Legis-
lature of 1911 was vetoed by me.
That it was designed to relieve the
intolerable conditions along the Hum
boldt river and had I not vetoed it
the water situation in the state would
long ere this have been settled to ev-
erybody's satisfaction and every wa
ter user be happy. Mr.. Boyle's bill,
even he must admit, was experiment
tai. Moreover, it would have been
met with the same legal delays in
testing its constitutionality which
the Carpenter bill has met, before the
question as to whether or not it real
| ly solved the intolerable water situa-
tion could be determined. At least
that is my opinion. Mr.. Boyle con-
trasts his bill with the Carpenter bin
to the latter's great disadvantage,
but it is fair to state that Mr.. Boyle
is speaking from both political
party and an ex-parte standpoint.
But, why is Mr.. Boyle silent about
the fact that the Carpenter water bill
was sumbitted to him for his exami-
nation and analysis prior to its intro
duction, and that after such examina-
tion and analysis he approved itf
Why silent on this facti
Again, Mr.. Boyle complains that ]
vetoed his water bill, in 1911, but he