Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1892-04-13
CAPITAL ys. LABOR.

l
 that it was opening the political campaign in this county. Aside from the above quotation the article did not contain two sticks full of type and certainly contained no comment in regard to Sheriff Lowrys action or any one else, the paper be- ing satisfied with a simple statement of facts. Our contemporary, how ever, with journalistic bushwhacking instincts, has seen fit to draw from the article in question a political significance which no fsir-minded reader of the article could attribute to it and has also seen it to indulge in some very discourteous sllusions to the editor of this paper and as cribe motives for its publication which the article itself does not justify. It does not, however at tempt to deny single statement made in the article but says it casts some "uncalled for reflections on the sheriff" As no comment was made, if there is any reflection on the sheriff it is contained in the facts as published.
 If the bringing of this suit against Sheriff Lowry and his bondsmen and the finding of judgment against them has any political significance in it, or if it casts any uncalled for reflection on Sheriff Lowry, the JouRSAL-MINER is not responsible for it as it had nothing whatever to do with either, except to publish them as an item of news just as it does other news items containing even less of interest to the public than this. Neither is it responsible for the political turn which our con temporary has given it. After be- littling and slurring this paper for publishing the news our contem- porary admits that sheriff Lowry turned the money over to the clerk of the court" This is what the JoURNAL-M MINER said exactly and in doing so he ignored entirely the statute which was passed by the territorial legislature to cover just such cases as this, for the protection of laboring men. The statute was passed in order that the rich credit ors of a collapsed mining company might not come in and slap attach
 ments on its property and collect the
 amounts due them, leaving the men who earned their money by the sweat of their brows to whistle for theirs. This statute says the claims of the laboring men should be paid first from the proceeds of sales under attachments by the officer making the sale, UNLESS SUCH CLAN IS DISPUTED BY THE DEBTOR OR CRED
 rroR BEFORE SUCH SALE" In this in stance the claims of these men fol
 their labor was not disputed by
 either the Tiger NJ. X Nj. company
 as debtor, or by attaching creditor:
 prior to such sale. What then wa:
 the sheriffs duty under the above
 statute' It seems plain as English
 language can make it. What wa:
 his actionl Our contemporary ii
 defending his action says: ''SHERIFI
 LOWRY TURNED THE MONEY OVER TO THI
 CLERK OF THE COURT" This is simply
 what the JoURNAL-MNER said in its article on Saturday. This is what Justice Andrews says in his decision
 of the case, and assessed damages
 amounting to Sl60.3l against him and his bondsmen for doing so. Nov where in all justice and fairness i.
 there any uncalled for reflection against Sheriff Lowry in publishing } this plain statement of facts without comment or criticism as this paper did.
 So in regard to the action of tn, sheriff there is no dispute. His de
 fender admits that he did just a'
 stated by the JoURNAL-MNER. But now as to the excuse given for hi: action. The Coulter says he die
 just as .'the decree of the district court directed him to and WITH THI ADVICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY anC did it in the honest conviction that
 he was doing his duty"
 Here are three several excuses First, by the decree of the district court. Does our contemporary pre- tend to say, that in issuing its decree the court had cognizance of these claims and issued mandate to ar } officer to disobey the plain provi sions of a territorial statute! If the , court did not have cognizance ol these claims and simply issued de cree to turn the money over to the clerk of the court, it meant, anc could only mean, to do so in accord ance with law. And would not the payment of these claims for labor as per this statute, and the turning . over of the balance to the clerk ol . the court, have been full compli' ance with the decree? These are
 questions which are left to our read CTS and our contemporary to answer as it will be difficult to convince thinking men that the judge of the forth judicial district had cogni-
 zance of these claims and issued a
 decree requiring an officer to vio- late a statute, without declaring such statute unconstitutional, and the records do not seem to indicate any such action.
 The fact is that the records do not disclose that these claims were ever
 brought to the judicial knowledge of the court, hence no order could