Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-04-19
CHAS. NJ. STRAUSS.
MAKES A FEW REMARKS UPON A
 TENDER SUBJECT.
Does not Understand the Peculiar Music to which he Waltzed--WiIl run the
 Judicial Gamut for Justification of his course.
TUcsoN, Ariz., April 10th, 1890.

TUcsoN, Ariz., April 10th, 1890
 EDITOR ENTERPRISE In your issue dated April l2th, you make use of the following: "The alleged compromise by which Superintendent Strauss turned over his office to Cheyney also acts as bar to an appeal"
 As you have evidently been deceived, and believing from the independent stand that you have taken, that you do not intend to misrepresent, I sim ply desire to set you right in the premises.
 While it is true that nothing but the most amicable relations have all ways existed between Mir. Cheyney and myself, it is also true that at no time did he. by deed, action or implication suggest any compromise to me, nor l to him. Furthermore, nothing has ever passed between us that could be so construed in any manner, form ol shape.
 The idea that animated me in turn ing over the effects of the office tc Mir. Cheyney was that I believed il made no difference to the people o Arizona, who performed the duties oI Superintendent of Public Instruction so long as the same were properly per formed. This l have always tried tC do myself; and have no doubt Mir l Cheyney will try to do the same. have always believed that if there wa' to be political wrangle, that it should take place in connection with some other office than the one that had charge of the educational interests o the people. God knows, that the ex amples set to our rising generation in this territory by our office holder: from the judges down is bad enough without looking to the heads of the department of education.
 There are some matters in connec. tion with the trial that has lately taken place by which it is supposed MT. Cheyney obtained the office, that l confess l cannot understand. Fol instance, was informed by one of thC attorneys who was present at the tria | that the Court refused to allow thl question to be raised as to whethe Mir. Cheyney had a right to bring suit | so that the matter at issue was simply "shall the territorial treasurer be com pelled to pay Mir. Cheyney the salar, that had earned for year past? and the Court simply said ives" II other words, the proceeding was con ducted as if were brought into Court tried, convicted, sentenced, and tn sentence executed without showinI me even the courtesy of informing me of the charge.
 presume this is justice.
 Another matter in connection wit this trial: l would suggest that might be well for Judge Sloan to ex plain, in order that the communit, may form a better opinion of the mal than it now does, why on the 21st c March, 1889, Judge Sloan, under oatl accepted from the then Secretary O the Territory his pay as a legislato for sixty days, while early in thi month, as judge upon the bench, h decides that on the following 10th ( April he had acted only 48 days as legislator.
 These are matters of record, an make me feel, to put it in very mil terms, little peculiar about his d cision. I shall refrain for the presen from making any comments upon tn action of Judge Sloan, but I can a sure you that l do not propose to allov the matter to rest where it now stand.
 Respectfully Yours,
 CHRLES Nj STR AIra.