The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1880-12-16

IA. AAs~sE . NJ s4sTEi-.

Of your paper on Tuesday last was
hardly what I expected il would be. II
reads very much like 4 dime novel and
reminds n Of what is generally termed
"yeilow leaf literature" II is full OF
imaginary and wild assertions and il
the proper heading had appeared with
il people would generally have eonsid-
erred IL the latest effort Of Ned Buntline
instead Of an attempt by Mr.. Stur-
gis 10 brand a maverick. Inasmuch as
Maverick has created a sensation,
and, as the word implies. he is without
a knewn owner, I have concluded that
I will adopt him-or rather what he
said in the communication alluded to-
and will give fair notice TO all parties
that ! hold myself responsible, not only
for what Maverick said, but for what l
may say in this letter.
read with some surprise the wonder
full communication which Mr.. Sturgis
penned for the OBLIGATION OF the read
ers Of your paper. ! supposed that the
gentleman had some wit. wisdom or
logic in his head, but il seems other
wise. Let me briefly review what he
said:
In the first place, he starts out with
some sort OF n complaint about anony-
not writers. | had supposed that n
gentleman OF Ills prominence-being the
secretary Of the stock association, n
member elect Of the next territorial
council, and n prospective candidate for
delegate m congress-had learned by
this time that no respectable paper pub
fishes anonymous letters; but II seems
that this fact was not known TO our rs
teemed friend. "where ignorance is
bliss, it's folly 10 bc wise"
Now then, let me go u little further:
Mr.. Sturgis says he did not draw mp
the law OF which complaint is made;
well, Maverick did not say that he was
the author of it. lie simply said, 81 am
told. etc, that the law was drawn by
Mr.. Thomas S~turgis." But although
he did not get up the law, he seems
willing and anxious to father and de-
fcnd il.
The only two points that were sought
10 he made in Mavericks letter were:
First, that ii works an injustice and n
hardship TO those who own q few head
Of stock which they desire to sell; Sec
ond, that there is no valid reason why
the tax payers of this county should pay
the employees Of the stockmen-to wit,
the stock inspectors. The first point
Mr.. sturgis disposes of by simply saying
that the law is necessary and that 1t is
universal, while in regard TO the second
he deals very deliberately with nice the
cries and suggestions, but does not deny
the fact that the stock inspector IS paid
10y the county.
Upon this point the gentlemaniy Sec
rotary tells us that ..one Of the chief
objects OF the association is the suppress
sion Of theft without distinction Of age,
sex, color Or social position" but did
anybody even hear of the stock inspec-
tors taking the trouble TO hunt up vio-
lations OF the law concerning theft UNI
less it was n theft of cattle or stock of
some kindp 1 will venture TO predict
that no cases of that kind have ever
happened in the territory or the county.
He says the inspector is an extra deputy
sheriff, and it is ''on the broad ground
of protection Of the most important in
%terest, both in dimensions and IN reve-
nue. TO the county, that payment is
assumed by the local government"
This assertion and the reason given
by my eminent friend come about rs
near being mere gas Us anything have
seen for n long time.
| will admit that the stock interes.
is n great one, but in what way is IL
supported and sustained? And what
genuine reason is there for the people
of this county to pay some $1,000 as
they have done within the past three
years, TO protect the cattle of Mr.. Tom,
Dick and Harry. There is not a stock
mar in this county to-day that owns
or pretends to W one tenth part OF the
land necessary for his cattle to roam
upon and find sufficient feed. The
cattle interest thrives upon the public
landslide land which belongs to the
$500