New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-06-30

ersx Mr. Elkins turned around in his big office chai
and responded he had only seen extracts rum "'
repnrt and newspaper articles.
aWhat have you TO say about the casef
81 do not care to say anything further tnan 'na' on
charges or insinuations that am OWNER Vi
ever was an owner Of the Maxwell grant directly Ut IN
directly, or was am part owner or was ever
In the pending litigation or any suit as 10 'ne uuo ~
patent to the same directly or indirectly are "oS'
false" - ,,
"But 1t Is charged only that you are the o"e o
that you are interested in the suit In COLORADO 10 SOU
aside the titlcl' - -,
aThat ia equally false" said Mr.. Ekins II had
any interest in the property. should be periecuy
willing to avow and defend It. But nave NONE "h"'
ever" ,,.. n,
"Do you know anything about the title OF iiS'o'' Vi
the grantP
sYes a oreat deal But You shonld go to those VINO
areinterestel for information the subject am 700
busy.to &C into the matter. have written is''er " ~
Commissioner Of the General Land ONCE sUa''s SUI
stantially what have just said 80,
"Wnl you not take time to tell me something Oh 'no
history OF this grant and your connection with H. you
ever had aDyp
aBrieny in 1860 this grant was confirmed by ACT Vi
Congress- Judah r. Benjamin being chairman ol .Ao
Private Land Claims Committee in tho senate ne ih
troduced the bill and had 1t passed In 1903 IL was su
to some Dutch capitalists for Sllooooo' they hi'' w
taning tho legal opinions Of some OF the Leading al
Of this country as to the validity of its title ana
extent of the grant. Among them were George l.
Curtis. Mr. Evarts Secretary Bayard and Mr.. Ben
janin OF London"
"Where are these opinonsl"
son file In the Land Office and suppose the law hri
of Barlow Iarocque mcfarland has some AS 10 the
confirmation OF the grant was In college when the act
was PASSED. aud the sale. knew nothing OIL IL un
it was contaminated After the sale company was
organized under the laws of NewMexico. with capai
to own and develop the property was employer a'
the instance ofW W. Macfaraud the local attorney
OF the conn any in that Territory. Barlow Larocque
Mcfarland were the attorneys in New-York and Mt.
BENJAMIN In London The law Of the Territory requreu
three resident directors and consented to act a one Oh
them without any part In tho duties, ana was gwen
few shares Of stock TO qualify me and partly rs com
pensation acting attorney 1t was less thhh NV
shares that held which proved OF no value as inc
mor,raped was foreclosed The entire stock held
abroad and my only active connection was that OF local
attorney which ceased In 1873. formally resigned III
1875 as attorney and director ten years ago In 1919
or 70 appointed attorney VI the receiver to mako an
argument before the Interior Department Tor patent
This was rendered unnecessary by reason OF the de-
cision of the Supreme OF the United States In the
case of Tameng vs. U. s. Freehold Land .and Emgra'
ton Company reported in 3D. Otto, page 6ii being an
nOunced that time which determined tue eHort o
the confirmation by Congress of a Mexican grant Upon
this decision was informed. Mr. Carl sGhnrz Seere
ary of the Interior. granted the patents Tbs SUIT was
considered test case and argued on behalf OF the
Maxwell Company by W. W. Maciariahd IN inc ouP""o
Court" 90,
How about the survey made by your broherF
@Tbs survey made upon plat and exphcit IN
structons from the General Land ONCE showing just
where and how the boundaries were to be run. Inc
surveyor had no discretion in the field, and II has never
been charged 1t be charged tat the survey
was wrong, 80 far as he concerned Upon some
allegation OF fraud. Mr. McNcagh, when Attorney
General ordered the suit lending and to which Mr..
Sparkss report calls attention" ,,
Have you any opinion as 10 the validity OF the ute
and the PATENT"
~Ycs, but as have interest In the matter DO
of feelr al O ~.
Evarts secretary Bayard. Mr.. Mcfarland and Mr. Beu
amI and the decision OF Mr.. Carl scbuz as secretary
of the Interior granting patent backed 10y the decisions
OF The Supreme OF the United states IN the cTc re-
ferrcd TO- should be sufficient against the opinion oil
Mr. Sparks But the courts have the matter ana u There
Ia no title or there Il anything wrong. 1t VIII come out
W W. Macfarland, after reading carefully The manu-
script Of the above interview, made this statement
Most OF the facts stated by Mr. Eins are true To my
personal knowledge, and believe all the stat rineHs TO
be literally and strictly Ny interest In The matter
from beginning end, like that OF the other lawyer
was purely professional"