Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1873-1877, 1875-07-16

4aB AOkB 0AOW8LA OHBou0 AesVsA1Ps
his defence against Sareent's terrific as
s.slt. the deeper they get him in the
mirs. All they have done. 20 far. is to
employ bubbles. misstate facts and
abuse Sargent and Gorham. The tele-
graph tells MS that John D. Lee has
turned states evidence against the per
lpstrators of the Mountain Meadow mas
sacre. The next act Of this sort, pro-
baby, will be tho turning states evi-
dence by John Biiwell against old Jerry
Black and his associate rogues. We
have alluded to .he weak and rambling
defence of the Man of Raisins by the
Bulietin. That paper made the state
ment that Bidwell's case had been dis
missed in 1857 instead Of 1859 as stated
by Sargent. The Senator comes back
at the Bul,.:i, in a letter, calling the at
tention Of the editor of that paper to the
real facts in the case. The Bulletin de-
Ginning to publish it. Mr.. Sargent sends
his letter to the Posi-. 1t appears in the
Issue of that paper for the 13.h. After
quoting some of the B,dietin's remarks
Mr. Sargent says:
wish to show you. Messrs. Editors,
that Won entirely mistake the facts. Ionr
informant, whoever he may be, mistakes
an appeal y hich was dismissed for in
formality IN 1857, full account of
which mag be found 81 Howard. 261. for
the one refer 10. The informally COM
mi,ted by the law officers Of the United
States was shat they did not comply
with the sd rule of the Supreme Court
in docketing the cases. But while order
ing the dismissal the Supreme Court
say:
Il. IS proper. however, 10 add. in
order TO prevent mistake on this sub
ject. thu. the only eff. ct of docketine
aud dismissins a case under this rule. is
to enable the party to proceed to execute
HIS Judgment IN the court below. 1t
removes the bar tn further proceedings
in that Court. which the appeal created.
and does nothing mo,e. And after the
Case has been iocket-d and dismissed.
the party against whom the decree was
rendered may still al any time within
five years from she date of the decree
take q new appeal in the inferior Cont;
aud If he files tee transcript of the
record iu this Court within the first six
DAYS of the term next ensuing his ap-
peal. the appeal will be valid. and the
case rs fully before this Court for exam
ination and revision rs if be had brought
it here at the first term. The Act of
Congress authorizes the appeal at any
time within Eve years. and the period
allowed by Law cannot be shortened by
any rule or practice Of court.
On this rrling and FOR this inform
aiity. not touching the merits, the case
was dismissed.
Bat. under the same ruling. a new ap-
peal was taken by the United States,
and allowed by Judge Hoffman. Novsm-
b so. 1853. and Bidwell was ''cited
and admonished to be and appear at a
Supreme Court Of the United States. to
b holden in Washington on the first
Monday Of December next pursuant to
a. order of appeal" etc. l qnote from
the r-rord This was the appeal 1 re-
f-rred to. The case was regularly before
the Supreme Court by this appeal. the
rights of the Government not liable TO
he defenfed by the ,echpicalify that
caused the first d,smissal. At the De-
rember term. 1855 the case Of Nye and
Bnsse.t was decided. showing the utter
worthies>ness Of the claim of title of
Bidven and others claiming under the
Snf.sr general title" That term ended
in March. April Is. 1859. after these
decisions. and after the arguments OF
the Attorney General leading up to
them. BidwelI procured the stipulation
the appeal against his case,
depending on the same facts and law.
The appeal which Attorney General
Black consented to dismiss was not a
b, ear later. 1t was this appeal. 1t was
not an appeal on a survey alone. 1t
was on title. The dates not only show
that. but the stipulation recites that
Bidwell ''be ut liberty to proceed and
obtain a survey and patent in conformi-
~ with the decree Of confirmation" Of
the Court below. The survey il in the
future tense. and the patent or title is TO
ne issued to Bidwell. But the records
shows that no pl.t Of survey was filed in
the case until S. pt-mber 3, 1859. over
q year later. But fnlly conclusive on
this point is the fac that it was not IN.
til the Act Of Congress Of June IA. 1860.
usually called the Hoffman Act. that
there Wis any appeal to the Sup eme