Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1875-08-12

ton of land matters at the capitol in
years gone by. The dispatch stated
that conclusive evidence had been
adduced that Bidwell had gained the
title 10 his immense tract of land
through the grossest fraud, by conniv-
ance with Stanton, who was then a
subordinate OF Blacks in the Attorney
Generals Office, and by the direct pay
ment of the sum of ten thousand dol
lars for the dismissal of the appeal
suit, which was then pending in the
United States Supreme Court. The
dispatch further stated that an exam
ination of the records of the Land Office
had developed the fact that Mr.. Sar.
gent, while a member Of the Lower
House, was mainly instrumental in
the passage Of a bill, by the provisions
of which his partner and himself, for
the sum of 5000, became the OF
a tract of mineral land in Nevada our
ty, CAL, tor which they have since
been offered $500, 900. If the statements
contained in the following letter are
true, they are a complete v~indication
of the charge brought against the Sen
ator by BiGwell through his Washing
ton agent. The lone of the letter is
manly; it is Straightforward and to the
point, and its statements bear the I'M
print of truth, for it is hardly presum-
able that a person of the authors
himself by direct assertions, which,
if untrue, are susceptible of such easy
refutation. Whatever else may be
said Of Sargent or Gorhain, it can not
be denied that either of them has in a
single instance during the campaign
failed to meet upon the instant every
charge which has been brought against
them, and that, too, without permit
ting their defensive tactics to interfere
for a moment with the aggressive poll
cy which they instituted at the com
mencement of the contest. Their man.
ner OF dealing with the accusations
brought against them has been in
marked contrast with the tardy and
shutting explanations OF Booth anu
the pinchbeck dynasty and reticent
policy of Bidwell. If the latter can
furnish as satisfactory an explanation of
the more than suspicious circum-
stances attending the manipulation OF
his land suit at Washington as has SEN
ator Sargent concerning his Congress
sional record in connection with the
mineral lands Of California, his posi-
ton as a reform candidate for Govern
or would not appear qnite so anoma-
lous as it does at present. The follow
ing is Mr.. Sargent's letter to the Union
Record. 1t was written without prep
aration, as soon as he had heard OF
the Geographic report:
On TRAIN, August 4.-Eds. Record
Onion: In a Chicago dispatch in your
paper to-day, l notice a statement con-
corning the purchase by myself and
Mr.. Jacobs from the Government of
lAAO wv NJ "a W. bAoV We wi
There is nothing connected with that
purchase or ownership which l am not
now and have not always been will
ing should be known toall the world.
l do not live in a glass house and / do
not fear stones. The mining claims l
bought of the Government 1 and my
partner had bought years before there
was a United States mining law, of
companies of miners who had them
selves owned them for years, and we
paid in the aggregate for our mining
property over $1,000 IN to these miners,
We held these claims and worked
them for years, and before l eve went
to Congress. Our rights were respected
by u neighbOrs, and We had as good
title as any miners had-neilher better
o worse. We jumped nobody's
claim and we located zone. We never
had q suit or dispute about our claims
or boundaries.
But the mere possessory right of
miners did not give sufficient
aKenent aud security tor development,
and there was a general demand by
miners for a law that would enable
them to purchase the claims. Such a
law i helped to pass, and its wisdom
has been v~indicated in practice. I'm
der it miners could buy to the exten
OF the claims they held under miners
laws, but future locations were restrict
ed to 100 acres. There was nothing,
however, to preventth Ia consolidation of
claims after purchase, and that is done
every day, because where expensive
tunnels are to be run, or bitches to be
dug, the small claim will not pay.
Any law that deprived miners of the
claims they held by purchase, a pur-
chase authorized by mining laws,
would have been a failure. There
were many companies holding ard
working claims far in excess of 100
acres, and some much larger than those
in which l had an interest-as the
company at North Bloomfield, the one
at Smartsville, etc. 1t would have
been unjust to have deprived these
men of part Of the claims they had
bought and were working. Hencetha:
provision Of the law.
Honestly owning my claims under
mining laws, and having secured the
passage Of a beneficial general law at
the ripe demand of public sentiment,
saw no reason then. nor do I now.