UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries
Transcription
P.3. As will appear from what is previously stated in tills letter* the provisions of the hill which 1 consider particularly objectionable are the provisions of Section 3. There are other provisions in the hill which 1 do not favor. X think the provision of Section 2 of the bill which would eliminate the right of a person to he registered to represent s qualified corporation owning property in the district at a district election is objectionable. Also the portion of Section 5 of the hill which would permit the district to take possession of condemned property after Judgment while an appeal is pending is objectionable even though the district is required to pay into Court the amount of the Judgment. It is easy to imagine the difficulties which would he encountered if the district had taken possession of an operating utility and the Judgment of condemnation was thereafter reversed so as to require the retrial of the ease. The orderly procedure is for the owner to stay In possession until final judgment. X am not concerned with the provisions of 3eetion 4 of the hill* nor the provisions of Section 5 not heretofore alluded to* nor the previsions of Sections 6* 7 and § of the hill. 1. S. Bennett
