Arizona weekly citizen., 1881-08-28
WRECK AGAINST WRECK.
The Rescued" Side Of the story
Tonnsrorr. A. T.. August IS.

! town, l have only now had my attention
 called to the article i'll your paper of the
 9th instant, concerning the Total Wreck
 litigation, headed Millions for De
 fense." It has never been my habit to discuss elsewhere than in court either
 the law or the facts in cases where have
 been engaged as counsel, nor should I now deviate from the usual course so far as to ask the use of your columns to re-
 ply to the article referred to were 1t not for the fact that my associates in the case-to whom the duty of reply more
 properly belongs-Messrs. Hugh Farley and John Haynes, are both absent from
 the Territory, and the further fact that the further effect of such articles, If un- answered, might be to prejudice the mind of the public from which jury must be drawn.
 Assuming that you will extend to the
 own ners of the Richmond claim the priv ilege of reply, I have to say, first, that your comments upon the inadvisability of compromise are needless. The ac- tiOns Of the Rescued from Total Wreck Mining Company against the Total Wreck Milling and Mining Company were not brought to procure q cOmpro- mise No person in behalf of the owners of the Richmond clam has ever pro- posed compromise, and so far as the writer might be able to control it. none would be accepted, even If offered by the Total Wreck Company. The mining ground in controversy belongs absolutely either to the Wreck Company or to the Rescued Company. If 1t Is the property of the former, then any compromise by which value should be paid to the latter would be no better morally than a rob bery. "A it Is the property of the latter, then any compromise by which 1t should accept less than its rights would be sub mission to robbery. I agree with you that the Territory cannot afford to have such rich mines lying unproductive,7 and join with you in the hope that as little delay as possible will be experi- enced in the suits" I can assure you that no delay will be interposed by the plaintiffs. We are ready to stipulate now to go to the trial next month, at us early a day in the term as the court will con sent. .-.--.-----
 The case need occupy no great amount of time in its trial, for although the property involved Is valuable, yet the ls- sues are simple. The facts, as they ap- pear of record, and as they have been represented to me, are as follows: The Total Wreck location was made by Dil- lon, Vail and Harvey, January Is, 1879 (and not in November, 1878, as stated in yOur artieleA. The notice of location was recorded January 2l, 1879, on page - Book of Records of Mines, Pima county. From the notice 1t appears that the Total Wreck Is a nOrtherly and southerly location, and that the notice of location was posted on the south cen ter-end monument. No other monu- ments than the south center-end monu- ment was erected at the time, no lode was discovered, and no work was done anywhere, so that in May, 1879, when Richmond, Vaughan and the two Hos kins came upon the ground, there was no valid location of anything. and no at tempt had been made by Vail, Dillon and Harvey to locate anything except a north and south claim.
 Richmond and his party discovered
 
 south of the south center-end monu- ment (and only monument of the Wreck. They read the notice of loca- ton upon this monument, and carefully examined the adjacent ground for other Finding none whatever, they concluded, as they had a right to first, that all of the ground was subject to location, and second, that luf -,s,l,N l,a l. L.. cators might have lay north of the pile 1 of stones which the Wreck locators had | themselves designated as their 'south | monument" ThereunOn ,..irc on May 31, 1879. the Ricl-T1Ond location was-r 1nAde-as an east and west location
 south of and at right angles to tho
 Wreck location. Upon the Richmond
 location, so made, Vaughn, Richmond and the HOskins went at once tO work They sunk a shaft about six feet, and then made a cut fifteen feet long across | the ledge, uncOvering 1t and showing ii to be east and west in its course, and
 theirs was the first work done upon any | portion of the mining ground in dispute
 Richmond and his party then left for Tue. son to procure provisions and supplies. l During their absence, sOmebody-pre. ! hlllOf l and Harvey destroyed the "south centre end monument" of the Wreck, | erected anew monument 590 feet west and a little south of the old one, and placed | in the new monument the notice of loca- ton taken from the other, and thereafter | excluded and warned the Richmond
 locators away from the ground.
 The foregoing l repeat are the facts as represented to me, and as have full faith will be proven at the trial by many
 witnesses. Certainly 1t appears by the records that the ground described by the Total Wreck Company in its applica- ton for patent lies nearly due east and
 west, while the ground described in its notice of location is nOrtherly and south erly.
 If upon the trial Of the issue between the two companies, the facts alleged above cannot be shown, then the owners of the Richmond location have no case. If they can be shown then the Total Wreck Co. has no case, and no amount Of newspaper discussion, no denuncia- tion of "blackmail suits" no refusal to pay a dollar never asked, towards a compromise never sought, can make a case strong enough to keep the proper " rom It's rlghtiul owners.
 Concerning the action to quiet title brought by the Total Wreck locatOrs last year, the record of your District Court shows that no service of summons was ever made upon the defendants, and that at the sO-caled "trial no person appeared for them; and the decree was obtained on the evidence of plaintiffs alone, without opposition from any quarter. It is true that an answer had previously been filed in the case by Mir. Oates, and l do not doubt that Mir. Oates, at the time he fled the answer. was honestly under the impression that hls employment proceeded from one having authority to act for the defend ants. That he was deceived in this, that the defendants neither employed him. nor sanctioned his appearance, nor knew of the trial until after Judgment, it will be the privilege of counsel for the Rescued from Total Wreck Mining Co" to make clear in the course of judicial proceedings now pending.
 Whether judgment obtained without service of summons, by virtue of an au- thorized appearance, coupled with a sub sequent failure to appear at all, will be suffered to stand or not, is to be de- termined bg the Courts, and pending its determination it might be well for the of the Total Wreck Co. to be difiident about designating as " blackmailers those who seek to open a judgment thus taken.
 You will perhaps permit me to say in conclusion that in twenty years obserya- ton and experience in mining communi- ties l have noticed that about the first net of defendant whose title IS assailed by lawsuit is usually to howl that the plaintiff IS blackmailer, and that the lawyers will ruin the mineral develop ment of the country. Doubtless the l defendant in such cases is honest in his 1 expressions. To disgorge illegitimate 1 acquisitions Is never cheerful task for | it's performer.