The St. Johns herald. (St. Johns, Apache County, Arizona Territory [Ariz.]) 1885-1903, 1888-06-28

cases, and would you believe it
that the jury after receiving one
instruction each for the plaintiff
and defendant, decided that Comfy
went upon the land first, and was
entitled to it, and he is now in un.
! disturbed possession of it. When
| heard it, wrote a piece about il
in the republican newspaper, the
Journal-Miner of Prescott, and gave
'em all fits. Ispoke right out from
the shoulder, (it might be better to
say, struck out from the shoulder
but let that go. } You bet your
sweet life | made Pene continue the
contest, though the papers have not
been sent in yet. Seems to be some
little trouble about the fees. etc.
If that's the law, Othello's occu-
patton is gone, and Henry Muldrow
and l had better quit.
Again-A fellow named Hill, or
Hull, or He'll, don't just remem-
Der now, instituted a contest against
Carson. Now, Carson had done
nothing but settle, buy about $500
worth of improvements, build a
house, corral, etc, and place a pre-
emption filing on the land, but sim
ply because Carson had not offered
to make final proof, the Register
and Receiver dismissed the contest.
That was an outrage, for Hill had
paid, besides attorneys fees, about
$40 for testimony, and as he had
acted under my advice, it was a
dandy contest, Had everything in
it-enough to cover a whole town
ship. Well, sir, when I attacked
those fellows about it through the
republican press, they had the i'm
pudence to say that my old friend
Lamar, in the cases of Bailey VS..
Townsend, Strawn vs.. Maher and
Perccval VS.. Dohenny, decided res
pectivcly Sept. q, 1856, Nov. II,
1855, and Aug. 81, 1885, had deter
mined that Contest against a
prescription claim should not be
permitted before offer to make final
proof therefor" That's ali the ex-
cuse they had. Ny honest belief
is, that they disliked Hill as much
as l did Carson.
These fellows, out here, state that
the United States Supreme Court,
in the case of Lytle VS.. State of Ar
kansas in 9 Howard, page 1873, has
said that "the claim of a pre-emp
ton is not that shadowy right,
which By some it is considered to
be, when covered by the law, it be-
comes a legal right, subject to be
defeated only by a failure to COM
ply with the conditions annexed to
it," and that the Supreme Court in
9 Howard, 10 Howard, Is Peters,
and many other cases has decided
that these certificates of entry are
good enough to support actions of
ajcctment for the recovery of pos
session of the public lands. l don't
believe it; but | make you this sug-
gestion, confdentiallv. You make
Garland hunt the matter up-be
careful not to mention my name
and if you find the Supreme Court
has been making any such decision,
the sooner you get my friend Fuller
on the bench the better.
These fellows talk about me n
good deal say l talk too much and
Investigate too little; that my asso-
ciates are all of the opposition par
~; complain of my using the re-
publican press to enlighten the pub
ic; but I've been giving 'em Hail
Columbia, and they don't like it.
Congratulate you on your renom-
nation. You must have forgotten
that last talk l had with you in the
Ebbitt House bar, when I advised
you to put Gray on the ticket.
However, we can whip en- anyhow.
l can and will carry all of these