The Lincoln County leader. [volume] (White Oaks, Lincoln County, N.M.) 1882-189?, 1882-11-04
David N, Easton Answers
the Charges Brought
Against Him.
And Fixes the Blame on the other
Party, where it Belongs.
South Fork, n. M.
October Is, 1882.

III bliC SolN SiAlloAl liSiN "b NhVo
lila, the other day, one of the
"planks" in their platform reads as
follows
9Th. We are in favor of the re-
peal of all that portion of the
"Town site law" passed by the
last Legislature, which requires the
owners oflots within town sites on
the public domain to pay exhorbi-
tant and Unnecessary fees to the
Probate Judge to obtain title to
their property; and we assert that
Representative d. M. Esston in
introducing and securing the pass
age of said law was animated by no
proper motive, and that said law
was passed to- benefit individuals at
the expense Of the people.
The statements made in the
above extracts are false. The bill
in question was written in Col. F.
A. Blake's room, at the Exchange
Hotel, in Santa Fe. This gentle
man, now a candidate on the
"Kickers'" ticket for the Terrific
rial EAsseinbly, approved the bill,
as he so stated to me at the time.
The Clown Site bill" was not in
introduced by me, but by the Hon.
W. T. Thornton, member of the
Council from Santa Fe, passed the
Council, and was referred to the
Assembly for their action. When
the bill came up for discussion, /
amended it by reducing the fees
allowed to the Probate Judge,
when the proposed town site ex-
ceeded eighty acres. The amend
ment made a scale Of fees !; for as
the town site embraced a greater
quantity ofacres, the fees were re-
duced proportionately. The bill
passed the House as thus amended
and was returned to the Council
for their concurrence. BY some
means, after the bill reached the
Council, the amendment was miss
ing. Mr.. Hazledine, of Albuquer-
que, informed me of the fact. l
then wrote and handed him the
amendment, and he attached it to
the original bill. This was the ex-
tent Of my connection with the
whole matter.
Col. Blake notonly approved the
bill, but, in reference to it, wrote
me the following letter upon his re
turn to White Oaks:
White Oaks, Feb'y, II, 1882.
Hon. u. M. EAsr6N,
Santa Fe, n. M.
DEAR SIR:-I expect you have
received copies of the Era of last
week, and would naturally wish to
know how | felt about things gen
orally. Wei, as you may think il
/ keep silence hat l endorseevery-
, thing said or unsaid in the Era,
will state Just how things are. On
my return from Santa Fe l had a
talk with Mr.. Sigh, and expressed
myself in strong terms Of praise in
regard to the work you were doing
in the House, and urged him tC
| sustain you. l also stated to hin,
that, in my opinion, your genera.
course would be a credit to the
, county and Territory. l meant
what / said, and while / did no.
i, presume to dictate what course ht
| should take in reference to you, J
had a right to presume that my
opinion would receive some consid
: Grafton. You must be your owl
Judge, from the files Of the paper
about what amount Of considera
ton it has received so far.
You can rely on the above.
5 Very Truly Yours,
(Signed) f. A. BLAKE.
The GolRsn Era, of the issu,
referred to in Col. Blake's letter
, contained an editorial, headed il
1 flaming headlines, "SNEAK-Tum:
THoRNToN's GRAB TOWNSHIP BILL
III which Mr.. Thornton's cours
was very severely criticized, as wa
also my action in supporting til.
bill in the Lower House.
In q conversation with MI
4 Thornton, he expressed himself a
I feeling a~ggrieved at the article il
question, and informed me that h
" ~ Grs