Southwest-sentinel. [volume] (Silver City, N.M.) 1883-189?, 1893-05-23
CAUGHTI M ms W. TRAP.

1HN
caught in it's own trap. Only ter
days ago that paper, in makini
some comments the case recent,
brought by the board of Count,
commissioner against Col. Lock
hart and bis bondsmen, said
There is no necessity for thii
suit, and District Attorney Anchet,
so advised the board Of County
commissioners. The question il
already pending before the courts
and if determined in favor of the
County and Territory, Col. Lock.
hart stands ready to pay the mon
ey over without further proceed.
ings. If the question be deter
mined in favor Of the taxpayers,
then he will undoubtedly pay the
amounts back 10 them"
The SOUTHWEST SENTINEL, hav-
ing been advised weeks ago in the
matter, stated hat there was no
case pending in the courts and the
Headlight admitted the fact in its
last issue. 1t said: at seems that
the SENTINEL cannot learn by dear
experience that the Headlight
never states a fact but where it
has the proof to substantiate. If
the editorial writerof the SENTINEL
can spare the time from his ardu-
GUS duties to look into the records
at Santa Fe, he will find that a par
allel ase in every particular came
before Judge Seeds for trial, and
that the decision was that the tax
es were illegally levied and should
be returned to the taxpayers and
that the county has no rights what
soever in the premises" Farther
in the same article was the
following: ut was generally un-
derstood at the time of the decision
in Judge Seeds court and was so
stated publicly by the solicitor
general that the case would be car
ried to the supreme court, but dill
gent inquiry on the part of the
Headlight for the enlightenment
of the esteemed SENTINEL, fails to
disclose any record of such pro-
ceedings." The Headlight might
have added that there were no such
proceedings.
The Headlight is left in a bad
position. 1t one issue it states
that there is a case pending in the
courts of the Territory, parallel in
every particular to the one brought
here, and that Col. Lockhart is
ready to pay over the money in his
hands as soon as it shall be decid-
ed In the next issue it says that
the case has been decided and that
no appeal has been taken and there
fore the case cannot be IN the
courts. If, as the Headlight says,
the case, parallel in every parti-
cular, has been decided in favor Of
the taxpayers we would like to
have the Headlight explain why
Col. Lockhart has not paid over
this money TO the taxpayers from
whom he collected it? The case in
Judge Seeds court was decided
months ago and the time for taking
an appeal has passed. The de-
cisIon stands and, If the Headlights
statements are true, Col. Lockhart
would be safe in paying over the
money to the taxpayers.
The fact is that the Headlight
is muddled. It's mental condition
is about as clear as this statement:
"The Headlight never states a
fact but where it has the proof TO
substantiate." We have not called
the Headlight in question about
any facts which it has stated. We
simply called it in question when
it stated that there was a case
pending before the courts involv-
ing the same questions as the one
brought by the board Of County
commissioners of this County. 1t
seems that that statement was not
a fact and that the Headlight
could not substantlate it. 1t did
the next best thing and that was
TO state that the case had already
been decided. 1t might be well
for the Headlight TO investigate
further and see whether the cases
are Parallel in every particular. "
SOME If the up country papers
express a great deal of surprise on
account OF the appointment of IL.