Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1894-12-14


EDITOR STANDARD:
A friend has sent me copy OF the
Morning Olympidn of date Nov. II,
1894. From that sheet (received to-
day. | first learn Of the decision by
the officials OF the local land office in
favor of the mineral claimant in the
case of the State OF Washington VS..
John q. Mcbride.
As stranger, comparatively speak
ing, to the people of your State who
has been wilfully and maliriously ma
ligned-not alone by the Olympia pa
per, but by one or more high Off
Gals whom it calls to its aid, | beg the
privilege OF brief space in your valu.
able journal in which to stigmatize az
it deserves the uncalled for and I'M
justitiable, if not wholly malevolent,
assault upon my personal and official
integrity which ! find in the alleged
newspaper now before me.
/ desire first OF all to say that when,
as an inspector of the q. l.. o., was
detailed to Tacoma TO discharge GER
tain duties in connection with the ex.
animation and test of the land in dis
pute between the State of Washington
and j. G. Mcbride, with a view to set
Ting the doubt which existed, and
most probably still exists, in the mind
of the Honorable Secretary OF the In
terror in regard to its mineral or non-
mineral value. / had never met the
mineral claimant, nor did meet him
until after the State had begun it's
preliminary work of exploration. l
did not then, have not now, never had,
and never expect to have, any interest
in the personal welfare of the mineral
claimant, nor has it ever been mat
ter OF the least concern to me how the
case might ultimately be decided. If
| ever entertained any feeling in the
premises it was in keeping with what
appeared to be the general public SEN
timent in and about Tacoma, coupled
with the hope that the State might
be able to make such case as would
secure the land in dispute for the ben
eft OF the school fund. That it did
not make such q case was no fault of
mine, but, as the evidence of its own
witnesses will show, of the wiseacres
who had the States interests in charge
and who secuted the one suggestion
l ventured Gll-advisedly, perhaps,) TO
make as to the best means to be en-
ployed in determining conclusively the
mineral or nOn-mineral character of
the tract as whole. An examination
Of the record will show that my sug-
gestion--one which, perhaps, had no
right to make, but which certainly
was not made in the interest of the
mineral claimant-wae in accordance
with the views of the only practical
placer miners who were employed by
and testified in behalf of the State.
My only duty in connection with
the examination and test was to see
that the order of the Honorable Sec
rotary of the Interior was carried out.
That the representatives OF the State
succeeded in evading that order by
partially debarring the mineral claim
ant from being present and witness
ing its (the State's) examination and
test at every STAGE" for the reason
that found myself powerless to freely
reinforce in that respect, while on the
other hand the mineral claimant
yielded strict obedience to the order
and made no effort to retaliate by ex-
GLIDING the representatives of the
State from being present at all ex-
plorations made by him or those in
his employ, will not. l think, be &C.
copied as evidence of bias on my par.
against the State. If any one had
just cause OF complaint it was Nc
Bride. who was subjected to continual
insult, not only, but despite the pres
ence of an officer OF the department
was debarred from the free exercise of
rights and privileges which were ex-
pressly accorded to him by the terms
of the Secretary's order.
The examinations and tests being
concluded, I had no other duty
to perform in the premises, save to
give my testimony at the hearing if
called by either party. An examina-
ton of the record will not disclose one
scintilla Of evidence tending to show
partiality or unfairness on my part /;
no effort was made to show anything
Of the kind, and there was no way in
which l could possibly have preju-
diced the interests of the State had
so desired; the desire and the oppor-
tunity were both lacking.
When the hearing had closed, and
the Attorney General who, in my
presence and hearing had agreed with
the opposing counsel that the argyll
ments should be submitted as soon as
the testimony was all in, was making
preparations to leave for the Spokane
convention to look after his imaginary
Senatorial candidacy, without stipula-
ton or agreement as to when aTgu.
ment should be submitted, I did call
the attention, as conceived it to be
my duty in the unexpected emergency,
of the Register and Receiver to that
clause of the Secretary's order which
required them to render q prompt
decision at the close of the hearing"
but made no suggestion as to the time
in which they should require the ar
guments to be made. They acted in
that, as in all other matters connected
with the case, upon their own judg
ment, and / never rendered any sug-
gestion or advice to them except to
point them to the Secretary's order
for their guidance. l never passed a
word with either of them in regard to
the merits of the case, and until the
receipt OF the paper before me had no
inkling of what their decision would
be, though l am frank to say that
having heard most of the evidence, /
am at a loss TO see how the local Off.
cials could have honestly arrived at
any other conclusion.
However, when was informed that,
Notwithstanding his agreement with
the claimants counsel, the Attorney.
General objected to the order of the
local officials requiring arguments to
be submitted within three DAYS. I
wired the Commissioner that such
order had been made, and asked him
Z" if wrong, please wire them instruc.
tions Immediately" Was there any,
thing reprehensible in my having
called the attention OF the local Off