The St. Johns herald., 1885-09-10


 Journal of the 27th ult., concerning the judiciary of Arizona and the Udall case, is a peculiar one. The motives that instigated the edito- rial are not understood. Usually that paper, since its establishment, -1as-evv.r-v<,-s-v. ~-;.>-1~-.li..e with facts, and always endeayored to guard carefully the truth upon such important matters. It is often that newspaper men, no matter how careful or cautious they may be. are led into error by the wiles, cum ming and glib talk of some person interested who easily preys upon the profession.
 To say that the article grossly perverts the facts and ignores the law of perjury does not express the sentiment. The whole editorial is a theory based upon falsehood alone. AS the editor of that paper appeals to us for information and the facts, we believe 1t has been un- wlttingly misled, and that the mo- tives were not vicious. We are pleased to enlighten the Journal.
 When Romney proved up, it be- came necessary for him to prove not "that he had not abandoned the ranch continuously for six months" etc., but. first, that Rom ney had made an actual and bona fide settlement upon the preemption claim; second, that he had fenced, plowed and cultivated some DOT ton of the claim; and, third, that his residence thereon had been con- tinuous from the date of settlement. Romney at the date of his filing, which was October 9, 1883, in his declaratory statement alleged his settlement to be on October ,, 1883. When the case was called before the clerk, Udall and Crosby ap- peared as witnesses. The first and second questions were answered by both witnesses unhesitatingly, to the effect that Romney made his settlement in 1881, two years before the date in his filing; that he had fenced, plowed and cultivated from three to twenty acres. At the third question the witnesses asked what continuous residence meant, and the clerk answered them that it meant his place of residence, where, when temporarily absent, he in- tended to return. Nothing was said about putting this or that down in eXtenso. Indictments were ob- tained against Romney, Udall and Crosby, in each of which the gov ernment alleged that Romney never made settlement, and did no fenc- ing, blowing or cultivation upon the claim, and had never had any residence there. Romney did not appear when the cases were called in court for trial, but forfeited his bond. The first case tried was Crosby's; the evidence tended to show that he had seen Romney on the claim, and supposed that he had settled there; that he had seen fencing, blowing and cultivation which he believed was on the claim and had seen Romney's children there up to within few weeks of making the affidavit before the clerk. These, and other cir cumstances, under proper instruc tions of the court led the jury tc believe that Crosby had not com mitted willful and corrupt false hood within the meaning of the law. It is we'll to say that on this trial the cross-examination by tho defense elicited the fact that Cros by was Mormon. The presidin; judge at once, and upon his owl motion, struck out the statement O the witness, and emphat:cally in structed the jury that it did no matter what church or creed th