Arizona republican., 1890-11-03
COx,s IGNORANCE OF LAW.

Frank Cox sfys that Judge Street used lawyers trick and read decision which had been rendered after his opin- ion had been given to the Tax Assessor and Board of Supervisors, and thereby admits that had the decision read by Judge Street been published before his opinion was given, his opinion would have been given differently.
 Such admission and such accusation proves Cox's ignorance. Judge Street clearly stated that he read the last de- cision which he knew of and that it was the last of long line reaching back to the days of Chief Justice Marshall.
 Judge Street probably had in his mind the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland, re- ported in 4 Wheaton, 3l6, and Osborne vs. Bank of United States, reported in 9 Wheaton, 73S. If Frank Cox had put the same thing in his mind he would not have made the mistake he did nor be now trying to bull it through.
 If Frank Cox will read on page 23 of 9 Wallace Report United States) he will find this language: "A sale of the public land for state taxes while the land is still owned by the United States is invalid" That language was written by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1869--long enough ago for Cox to have learned it, and then not accused Street of pulling new-made decision on him.
 In 1872 the same Supreme Court said: t16 Wallace, 603.) "Although lands sold by the United States may be taxed before the Government has parted with the legal title by issuing patent, this principle is to be understood as appli- cable only to cases where the right to the patent is complete, and the equita- ble title fully vested without anything more to be paid or any act to be done going to the foundation of the right"
 In 1874 (22 Wallace, 444.) the same court said the same thing,
 In 1885 (Il5 U. s. Report, 600.) the same court says "No sale of land for taxes, no taxes can be assessed on any property but by virtue of the soy- ereign authority in whose jurisdiction it is done.
 'Tt follows that if the assessment of taxes is valid and the proceedings well conducted, the sale confers title para mount to all others, and thereby de- stroys the lien of the United States. If on the other hand, the sale would not confer such title, it is because there exists no authority to make it. At all events, the holder of the equitable title has right to prevent sale which would have the effect of impeding the United States in the assertion of her right to them until these costs are paid"
 The same court the same year said the same thing in IF U. s. Report, l51.
 How many more cases there are, we don't know, but we have given enough to show that Street knows what he is talking about and Cox does not. If he had picked up any Settlers Guide" which has been published and circu- lated for years among the people, he could have read: "The right to tax lands of the United States entered un- der the homestead laws, does not accrue to the State until the expiration of the period of residence and cultivation and until the final proof required by law shall have been made and approved and the final homestead certificate issued"
 A decision of the land department in 1875 @, Copp's Land Owner, ,l4s) settles the question against Cox, and it would be more becoming in him to admit his own ignorance than to accuse Judge Street of unfairness in springing new made law on him. His California law about taxing possetsory claims has nothing to do with the question, for