Arizona weekly citizen., 1889-05-04
THAT REPORT.


 Peralta land claim, has again beer brought to the fore by fatherless re port conndemnatory of it. This repor was written not by the Surveyor General but had it met his approval, and th' sanction of the Department at Wash ington, would have been signed by him It however failed in both instances, ano the signature to give it official validity and force was withheld. These facts were learned by personal inquiry at the office of the surveyor general It was further learned that the general land office was decidedly averse to report of any kind being made on said claim, and had so instructed the office here. The full force of these instructions were re- garded by General Hise as commando tory and his inclinations were to rigidly obey them as such. But notwithstand- mig this he was urged and advised other wise, and yielding to his desire to benefit the people living on the supposed claim, he consented to allow said report to be written. This was done and the result submitted to him, but as it failed to meet the requirements of the case and the Land Commissioner was still obdur- ate, he refused his official signature. This has been the cause of an unneces- sary amount of adverse criticism at the hands of the Salt River press, portion of which appears to have so far forgot ten their duty to the people from whom they derive support, by again calling up for discussion this stupenduous.frau with its tendency to unsettle titles and lower property values. In doing so they hold or propose to hold to the belief that the report in question would have given the grant its quietus. The Surveyor general and the authorities in the gen. eral land office think otherwise.
 They have as may be seen by documen- tory evidence on file in the Surveyor Generals office, resolutely refused to authorize or permit an investigation or the Reavis fabrication, rightly maintain ing that the burden of the proof was on the claimant and not with the govern ment or people whose rights would be placed in jeopardy by acknowledging that such grant existed. In further proof We were priveleged to copy the following conclusive letter from Commissioner Stockslager, written under date of April 24th. He who runs may read it so plain.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
 WASHINGTON, D. O., April 24, 1889. Hon. John Hise, U. s. Surveyor General,
 Tucson, Arizona.
 SIR: * You received my decision of April 16, 1888, on this pretended grant, (see an. report for 1888, D. 132,) and, also, doubtless have my let ter of April IF, 1888, in which you were expressly directed to postpone the in vestigation proposed until further ad- vised by this office" No such further advise" has been given and this, of it. self, is sufficient reason for you to give for oecIining to take any action. trust that you will not be misled by any spe- cious pretext that action is desired in the interest of settlers on the lands. Such settlers are in no danger of being disturbed unless the officials of the de partment allow themselves to be used as the instruments of what looks, on its face, like gigantic scheme to defraud and private owners alike out of an enormous tract of land.
 call your attention to the following extract from my decision of April 16, 1888:
 The question whether Mir. Reavis has established his right to represent this claim is one primarily for your determ- ination, as it is necessarily the first ques- tion that addresses itself to a surveyor general when called upon to investigate claim. The time of the surveyor gen eral and the means of the government cannot be expended in examining claim if there are no parties to take evi- dence, nor in hearing parties who do not represent legal claimants. Questions of descent, devise, heirship, and legiti- macy are all involved, and the interest of claimants must be conclusively shown. When party claims an estate from the government the burden of proof is upon him, and he must establish the interest he seeks to represent.
 Unless Reavis has offered some evi- dence of his interest in this alleged grant, in addition to what appeared in the papers upon which said decision was based, he had no standing to invoke your action in the investigation of this claim. If he or his representatives claim that his standing is sufficient, they can by appeal from your decision holding the contrary, bring the question up to this office and from here take it to the Secretary, for determination on this preliminary question. But, if you enOUlO give lllc OldlIu IcCOBulllOn Us d report on its merits, whether favorable or adverse, it might have the effect of placing all the land involved under a reservation the end of which no one can foresee. <
 Yours, truly,
 s. NJ. SToCKsLAGER,
 Commissioner.
 This same line of policy characterized the administration of General Sparks who used the result of ex-Surveyor Gen eral Johnson's investigations as an ex- euse for his removal. Johnson had al ways been an anti-grant man and from the evidence then on hand of the fraud Reavis was attempting to perpetrate, he desired to report against it, and would have done so had not his career of pub lie usefulness been temporarily cut short by removal. But here is where the inconsistency of human nature comes