The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1922-03-11
EUREKA COUNTY HIGHWAY MATTERS
REPRESENTATIVES of Eureka County Chamber Of Commerce
Meet With Board of County Commissioners and Dis
cuss Highway Situation in North End of County

FollOWing the regular Dusiness
meeting of the County Commission
ers on Monday, several members OF
the Board of Directors Of the Eureka
County Chamber of Commerce met
with the Commissioners and dis
cussed the highway situation in the
north end of Eureka County, as 1t
pertains to the Welche Canyon and
Emigrant Canyon routes.
II was evident that the Commis-
sioners were In favor OF the Emf
grant Canyon route, but that at the
meeting with the State Highway
Board In Reno last month, they ac-
cepted the Welche Canyon route, upon
an opinion given by A. Z. Cheney. an
attorney of Reno, that they had no
legal grounds upon which they could
refuse to pay bills presented by the
State Highway Department, for work
on the Welche Canyon route. Mr..
Fulkerson, the north end Commis-
sioner, brought out the fact that for
two years the County Commission
ers had fought for the Emigrant Can
yon route, but that at no time was
there concerted action on the part Of
the taxpayers to show that they were
standing behind the Commissioners
In their fight. Therefore. with the
eminent legal advice obtained in
Reno, the Eureka County Commis-
sioners decided to accept the best
possible compromise. hence their ten
tative acceptance of the Welche Can
yon route, provided certain other
road projects were carried out In the
county by the State Highway Board.
DIR. Bremen, president of the Eu-
reka County Chamber of Commerce,
speaking for that body, stated to the
Commissioners that the organization
he represented was solidly behind
the Commissioners provided they
took a firm, uncompromising stand
against the recognition of the Welche
Canyon route. To assure the Com
missioners that II was the belief of
the Eureka County Chamber of Com
merce that the vast majority of tax
payers of the county we're also OPP
posed to the Welche Canyon route.
evidence was brought forward re-
garding the questionable sent out
by the Chamber OF Commerce, show
ing that not one signer favored the
Welche Canyon Route .
DIR. Bremen, in arguing the mat
ter. took issue with the opinion of
Mr.. Cheney regarding the legal as
poets OF the situation and brought
forth the following facts in support
OF his stand:
The Fulton amendment to the Gen
eral Highway law OF Nevada was en-
acted in 1921 and approved on March
14th of that year. This amendment
provides that
Whenever in the construction,
reconstruction, maintenance or
repair of any OF the State high
ways 1t shall appear to the State
highway engineer that any por-
tion of the State highway as
herein defined is dangerous or
inconvenient to the travelling
public in its present location, or
as ii may from time to time be
located, by reason of grades,
dangerous turns, or other local
conditions; or that the expense in
the construction, building, re-
building, maintenance. or repair
thereof would be unreasonably
great and could be materially
reduced or lessened by change of
route, the State highway engin-
eer is hereby empowered to di-
vert or change said route in such
manner as in his discretion may
seem best. with the approval OF
the board of county commission
ers, but such route shall not be
SO changed and diverted as to
exclude therefrom any OF the
towns mentioned I'm section b OF
this act unless the consent of the
board of county commissioners of
the county In which said town or
towns are located shall have been
obtained; and provided further,
that the said State highway en-
gineer shall first submit aplan of
the proposed change to the board
of highway directors. and the
same shall be approved by them.
1t will be seen that the State High
way Engineer is not empowered to
change the route nor to exclude
towns therefrom which are men
toned in Section of this act.
In 1921 the Mack amendment to