Las Vegas free press. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1891-1???, 1892-06-17
LAS VEGAS, N. NJ, June II, 1892.

~ bhO GuiIOl VI Tue hkE RhSS'
The Optic in its editorial of la'
evening conjured up very strang
phantom, indeed, for the purpose q
frightening the people of Las Vega
into aiding Millhiser. Its logic, how
ever, is so faulty that its position
only needs to be stated to show it
righteousness.
It persists and insists, first, tha
the individual claimants, MillhiseI
q Co., have no right or title what
ever to the grant. In this view it il
supported by the act of congress, the
decisions of the courts of this terri
tory, and those of the department of
the interior.
1t persists and insists, second, that
the government has no more title to
the Las Vegas grant than the indi-
vIdual claimants, Notwithstanding
the decision of the department Of the
interior to the contrary.
Therefore, it says, if the govern
ment takes the grant, under the de-
cisions of the secretary of the inter-
ior; and the individual claimants,
who neither have any title to it, nor
any adjudication of title to support
them, bring suit against the govern
ment to recover it for themselves, the
courts of this land will take the grant
from the party haging the stronger
claim, that is, the government, and
give it to the party having the weaker
claim, that is, the individual claim
ants.
But the Optic will argue, no doubt,
that all the decisions and adiudica-
tions of the status of the Las Vegas
grant, heretofore given, are void, be-
cause they are contrary to the law as
applicable TO this grant. In antici-
patton of such course let us consider
its position from that standpoint.
Then the government and the in
dividual claimants stand upon the
same footing. Neither has any right
or shadow of title to the grant. But
the government being the more pow
erful of the two takes the grant and
holds it. Now, it says, if the gov
ernment does this the individual
claimant will bring suit against it
and the courts will take the grant
from the government, which has
possession but no right to it,and give
it to the individual claimants, who
have neither possession nor title.
Surely we may well exclaim here, D
Temporal! o mOreS!
As if the public did not know that
the party bringing the suit always
takes upon himself the burden of es-
tablishing his claim; that the defend
ant in an action has only to sit by
until the plaintiff has proven his
case before he is called upon to say
or do anything in support of his
course.
If the individual claimants, Mill
hiser and his associates, have no
right or shadow of title to the grant,
how can they prove title in the suit
they may institute against the gov
ernment, as they will be called upon
to do before a court will give them
anything? Will court look into
the title of the government when
the parties asking it TO do so have no
right or title to the property in ques-
tion themselves? The court would
answer such suit by saying to the
individual claimants, "What is it of
your business whether the govern
ment has any title to this land or not,
so long as you have no title in it?
The government is on the defensive;
it has possession of the grant, and
that possession will not be disturbed |
in favor of those who are nothing
more than meddlers.
Therefore, we repeat, as a matter
of both reason and law, that no one
can ever contest or hope to contest
successfully the claim of the govern
ment, except the town of Las Vegas,
and this it is unwilling to do, for
such course would be in the interest
of the individual claimants.
MILLHIsER MoNoMANIAC.