Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-03-18
TOMBSTONE TOWNSHIP.
An Important Event in the History oi ti4e
 Camp-yietory for the settlers'

From the Tombstone Epltaph-
 Upou the opening of the District Court yesterday morning, Judge D- h. pinney rendered the following declslon m tfe cases mentioned. These cases ln- volve all the questions at issue between the Townsite company and the settlers claimed by them, and will have an lm- uortant bearing upon the future of our town. The decision was rendered orally and was taken down by the court repor- ter. We give l. in full, Rs 1t Is one or the most important ever rendered m the M. F. Clark ct al. vs. The Vizina Consol-
 dated Mining Company.
 J. $. Clark ct al. vs. J. $. Mccoy.
 James Reilly, administrator of W. J.
 Baldridpe. deceased, vs. M. l. Clark. James Reilly vs. M. E. Clark.
 These cases have been very fully pre- sented and elaborately argued, not only at tbe bar. but the briefs of counsel have been exceedingly clear and explicit. The questions involved are somewhat dIih- emit. and have not had time to prepare {, written and formal opinion, and shall this morning give generally my notions Of them.
 A patent Is issued to the TOwnsite companv rsserving ali mineral claims, and a patent is issued to the Nlzina Mn ing company r5seryiBg all townslte lots [ think that IS about the wording ot It {; # Is the substance of II, any way.
 There was an application made to the department to have excluded from the V;zina mining patent reservation con corning townsite lots, asking that IL be taken out of the general order of lssulng patents which reserved the townslte pro oerty and make an exception n that
 ,ase. but the department refused to do it. and sad the patent ID that case would De issued as in all other cases and leave the question O. the rights ot parties to ue decided by the Courts.
 Under the general statutss of the United States in regard to these town
 site lots the Territorial Legislature or Arizona, 1871, passed statute which contains twelve or thirteen sections
 The section of the United States Re yised Statutes which 1 refer to ls Z5oi,
 which reads as follows:
 "Wheneyer any portion Cf the pubic
 lands have been or may be settled upon and occupied as a tOwusIte, not suoJect | 10 entry under the agricultural pre-emp- .ion laws, it IS lawful, in case such town be incorporated, fJ- the Judge of the County Court for the county Tn which
 such town is situated, to enter at the yroper land office, and at the minimum price, the land So settled and occupied m trust for the several use and oeneht l of the occupants thereof, according to | their respective interests; the execution ! of which trusts, as Co the disposal of the ] lots in such town. and the proceeds of the sale thereof to be conducted under | such regulations as may be prescribed | by the legislative authority of the State | nr Territory in which the same may be | -ituated.
 l. Is under that clause that the Arizo- | ua Legislature passed this townslte Act.
 | There IS some proof ID this case about | the Mayor before he issued these deeds. | advertised in a newspaper, and n the | blank deeds which the Mayor hts filled | out he specifics that he advertised from | April to May 2l, and tor a period Oi | ume more than three weeks. l do not l think there IS any law which authorizes any advertising on the part of the l Mayor. unless i5 Is thIs general statute 1 of the Territory. There Is also some l other proof here about the advertl5- tug from the i1th of May, or the notice
 which Was intended to be given for thirty ! days, but which Was in fact not given on | account of some error.
 The general statute of the Territory
 provides:
 | Section ]. In all cases in which any
 of tue public lands Of the United States
 iu the Territory of Arizona has been, or
 shall hereafter be, selected and occupied
 as a tOwnsite, If the inh5 bitants of such
 town shall be at the time incorporated
 1t shall be the duty of the corporate | authorities of such town, or, If not In-
 corpOrated, then of the Probate Judge
 If the county in which such tOwnsite IS
 situated, whenever called on by any of tbe occupants of said town, and the ! money for the entrance of such town
 ste furnished, to enter such townslte | under the Act of Congress In sucn case
 made and provided.
 | Sec. . When a tOwnsite Is entered l under the abOve-recited Act of Congress
 by the corporate authorities of any In-
 curporated town, deeds shall be made
 Oy the Mayor or other chief officer of
 such town for the time beng, and said
 iced or deeds shall be attested by the
 City Clerk or Registrar, and shall be | signed by the Mayor or other chief
 officer, under the corporate seal of said
 city. attested by said City Clerk or | Registrar, If said city shall have a cor l pOrate seal, and If IL shall have no seal,
 under the previous seal of sad Mayor or | other chief officer, attested by the City Clerk or Registrar as aforesaid.
 These are the only two sections of | this Act winch speak of the corporate | authorities, or the Mayor at all. There
 IS no provision that he shall advertise or give notice of any kind or character, but he shall execute the deed.
 The other sections provide that if the | Probate Judge does this work that he
 shall advertise and that he shall ap- | pOint three commissioners, and the 1 commissioners shall visit their lots and | find out who are the occupants and how
 much they shall pay for the lot, their | proportionment of the expenses after | the survey, entry, etc, and then that | they suail publish the same for thirty | days. Unless these subsequent sec | tions apply tO the Mayor there IS nOth- | ing ID this Act of the Territory which | requires the Mayor to give anybody any
 notice of anything. It says simply that | he shall execute the deeds.
 | Now. ID these proceedings the proof
 that along in March sometime-at any | rate 1t was before the 18th of April, | 1880. l do not krOw but 1t was in | March, 1879, Mr. Clark, Mir. Bidwell and | other parties caEsed private survey to
 be made and tba streets to be laid ont and so on iu tlIs town. I do not see | where the parties gain any advantage | by doing such an act as that. l have | looked ali through these authorities | that have been cited by counsel and l
 do not see where the parties gain any
 advantage by making private survey | of that kind.
 | These cases then, according to my no- ton, have got to stand upon the entry | based upon the survey as made on the | 9th of March. 1880, and 1 shall hold under these authorities that the Town | site company acquired no right previous ! to April 9, 1SSl, at the time the entry | was mace.
 4 great many questions are raised and points made, and among them 1t Is ! claimed in this Vizina case that the de ! fendant could only hold the lots neces sary for tine use or theIr work as against | the TOwnsite company. It IS claimed | on the other side that they have the
 right to the possession of the surface | ground.
 h 1S7S or 1879 the VIzina Mining com ! pany commenced to work that location, and one witness, Mr. Arnold, testified that he found mineral there. rock in place, a vein, etc, in June, 1879, and an- other witness, surveyor, NIT. Mitchell, testities that be saw tons of this mineral there ID the latter part of 1879.
 Section II, Of this Territorial townsIte act, provides
 Al persons who select and lay out townslte, and their assigns shall be L :. .L. L.-A--