Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1903-05-08

- %1 't1"
that I am opposed to the incorporation
Of only certain portions thereof. In
fact, my views are o pronounced In
this matter that would include in
one municipality not only the east
and west sides, but also the Upper
town and the Hot Springs, il they
should so desire.
These are my views on the subject,
but | also believe that If We cannot
incorporate the whole OF the two
towns now, 1t Is the duty Of the west
side to incorporate by itself and to
trust TO the future to so adjust condi-
lions that consolidation will be the
result.
am glad TO read that you have al
ways been in favor Of incorporation OF
all the two towns. had come to be
lieve that you held a different view
because, In the same issue Of your
paper from which you reproduce an
editorial to show my error, | find a
statement where you say that the
most desirable portions OF the two
towns should be combined under one
municipality. Now, the question Of
desirability was an important one,
and | publicly stated, I think. that II
was your duty to explain what you
meant by desirabllity; that you
should define your position by locat'
Ing upon the surface OF the ground,
as 1t were, those desirable portions,
Previous to that, in your issue Of
the 4th, there appeared another short
editorial to the effect that the most
important sections OF the towns should
be incorporated into one city; this
statement also misled me, for ! con,
slider all portions equally important
for the purposes and ends Of munich
pality.
As to the land grant matter, this
Is a public question which. from The
very nature of things, must always be
discussed In connection with incorpor
alton. ! touched upon that subject
from purely praiseworthy motives, ant
do not think that either myself. OF
any of the other gentlemen who spoke
at the west side meeting Tuesday
night. intended, by reference to The
srsnt question to stir M undue 3 rife
believed then. and | do onw be
lieyo in geas1 faith that the court hat
no jurisdiction to appoint trustees ii
the nature Of receivers for the grant,
that these apnointees, besides the fun
damental objection Of the defect il
their appointment, were not qualified
TO act because they we're all parties
interested In the issues involved. ant
because they had given no bond.
was further of the opinion that tn,
Legislature had no right to pass
retroactive and special law to vail
date proceedings OF a court whic'
had wrongfully assumed jurisdiction
of that question. That the function
of the legislature we're to enact laws
not TO render Judgments, or to pas
laws which would have the effect O
judgments.
did say Tuesday night that II,
grant was not a trust. but | thin
the reporter was in error when /,
quoted me as saying that it was
mere declaratory grant" If such
term was then used by ma. 10 no
now recall, and | confess that | ign D.,
the meaning of It. | evidently sal,
something else.
These views are submitted In al
candor, and In the discussion of then
! will simply ask the public to stril
itself OF all bias. and to accord to m,
that consideration which they woul,
accord to any honest man. II m,
conclusions are wrong. | will not plea,
my apparent youth as a mitigating
circumstance, and although | hav,
not grown gray-headed in the discus
sion OF grant matters. the very fac