Arizona weekly miner., 1877-05-04
LETTER FROM SECRETARY HoYr.
TuosoN, April, 25th, 1877.

Enron MINER:-I have just seen your editorial contained in the Daily of the slst instant, and desire to say in regard thereto, that. while am entirely willing taat all my acts in an official capacity shall be ialrly criticised, still prefer that such criticism should be made after more complete knowledge of the facts than seems io have been in your possession at the time you wrote the article in question. And as l have had the opinion that you would not wilfully misrepresent my acts upon this sub feet. I am forced to the conclusion that some one must have given you false iafor- nation in regard to my opinion and acts relating to the removal of the pgopety from Tucson to your city, and l therefore write you this to give you as truea statement oi my position in regard to the matter as !, consistent with the proper length oi this letter
 I would first say, that have always be- lieved, and still believe, that the ac;s of the Ninth Legislative Assembly are as valid anu binding as those of any other Legislative Assembly that this Territory ever had, and have always asserted this belief, both m public and private; SD that my position in regard thereto is well known here, and supposed it was also well known m your place. And believing as did, and do, m that regard, have always expected, and 1t has been my intention and desire, Co carry out in good faith the law providing for the removal of property to Prescott, and the only reason that | delayed as long as did before instructed MT. Miller to come after the goods, more because l feared that some such step would be taken as has been taken, and the Territory made expense without anything being accomplished. l would fur ther say that. as to my personal preference as between Tucson and Prescott, that l have little or no preference, but if had 1t would not, think, change my official action. But, while say that have no preference as be- tween the two places, still that did not pre- vent me from having a decided preference to move the goods at the time fixed by the law for the reason that thought, as l said before, that the act was binding and lawful, and would in the end stand. and that if the goods were not moved just at the time pro- vided, they would have 70 be moved in the end; and hence, l have, from the first, hoped that no attempt would be made by the peo- pie here to delay or defeat the the operation of the law; but the fact that hoped that no action would be taken, could not blind my eyes from acts that were being done looking to such an attempt. And 1t was be- cause acts were being constantly per formed looking to some way in winch the removal could be prevented, that made me expect that such an effort would bc made, and therefore delayed sending for MT Miller as long as 1 did; bat at last got tired of hearing constant threats of what would be done, and wrote MT. M to come and, as I understood, his teams were as fuI aS PlGniX when the order, to show cause was renewed upon me.
 This brings me to the question of my acts since made defendant In that proceed ing, and to your insinuations q hope aad trust made on false information that had not made "bonaide" defense to the issue ing of the injunction. In regard thereto would say that, if from the time said order to show cause was served upon me, until the issucing of the injunction, I failed to dC anything that 1t was possible for me to dc to prevent the issuance thereof, then it wa, from want of ability, for 1 most earnestly did everything that knew how to do. appeared before the Commission and pre- sented all the objections that l thought would have any force against his right t. hear the opposition, and these being all overruled by him, l then presented and filed as comprehensive reservation oi rights Gin regard to moving for the dissolu. ton, etc, of any injunction that night b, granted) as it was possible for me to prepare And then, as the Commissioner insisted upon going on with the hearing I read and filed with him brief. in which made nineteen points against his right to issue the iniunc- ton on the complaint file |, of which then thought, and still think, ten were conclusive against the right to issue the injunction.