Weekly journal-miner., 1909-09-08

''I do not care to express an opin
 ion as to the valadity of the injunc tion. That is a matter exclusively fcl
 the courts to pass upon. One thing
 however, will be called to the atten-
 tion of Judge Doe upon the motion
 to dissolve the injunction which will
 be immediately filed, and that is thu.
 insuffieieney of the injunction bond. The law requires that when an injune-
 tiOn is sought to restrain the eollec-
 tion of a money judgment (which IS the case here) the bond shall be n double the amount of the judgment.
 In this ease, therefore, a bond for about $244,OOO should have been glv. en. It seems that a bond for only $3,500 has been filed.
 "It seems to be the contention of the smelter people and the trustee that all the smelling eOmpany's prop erty was sold on November 10, 1908, by the trustee, pursuant to an order of the United States court for the district of New Jersey, free and dis charged of these local liens excepting two specified mortgages. That b. cause of this sale. the liens were transferred from the property, which is situated in Yavapai county, to the fund (real or imaginary) which is certainly not in Yavapai county, or elswhere in Arizona. but is said to be in New Jersey. Wherever or what ever it is, the lien claimants who arc restrained by this injunction have no knowledge, but they are gratified to know that they have a lien upon It. No court in Arizona has or can have any possible control over it unless it is brought into the territory, and the prospects for this do not seem flattering. At any rate, the assur- apee that they have a lien on this fund is the only tangible thing the lien holders have thus far realized, but the men who are still waiting for their wages do not seem to be able to lean" on it very hard.
 ''It is true that we recently re- eeived through the local attorneys for the trustee. an offer of 90 per cent of the face of our claims. This meant loss of the interest, which now amounts to more than ten per cent, and the costs of suit. Summed up, the local creditors were asked to stand a discount of about % per cent. Some of them were willing to do this, but the others refused. Just why such an offer should be made is not clear. The fund is said to be large enough to take care of the lien claims in full. It is a trust fund, if anything, and was ordered by the New Jersey court to be held for the payment of these liens. Since the offer was made, a number of local creditors have, been wondering for whose particular benefit the local creditors were asked to stand a trim ming of One-fifth of their claims.
 If the smelter people ever intend ed to deal fairly with the Arizona creditors, why did they procure from the New Jersey court an order 70 sell the property free from all liens, ex eepting the two mortgages! And why, if the fund derived from the sale is as large as they say it IS, does some one seek to trim 20 per cent from these same creditors! And there are several other why's And if the intention is to defraud the Ari- zona creditors, which seems alto gether likely, if it is possible then 1t is easy to understand why this in junction has been obtained quietly and hurriedly from the court eOmmis- siOner, without any notice to the | other side and practically without bond, when the judge of the district court was no further away than Flag | staff"
 The lien holders are as follows: Cecil G. Fennell and Bank of Arizona, ore claims, S2O,Os5.51; American Cop per and Gold company, ore S2,1S491; St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific company, coke, $4,77s.9O; R. E. Nor rison, assigned labor claims, $6OO.4s; John C. Hartsfield, assigned labor claims, S49s.S5; Kelvin Calumet Cop per company, ore, $2,494O6; J. c. Rankin, ore $1,O77.43; Prescott Iron Works, material, $92s.OS; A. W. Ed wards, assigned labor and ore claims, 17,77247; Treasure Hill Mining com pany, ore $3,393.67.