Bisbee daily review., 1920-10-22

leases expired June 30 last, the to-
 R 23E. Hillman and Graves applied
 fer renewal leases for this acreage
 during the statutory period there
 fore, and you applied to lease the
 same land. The law gives prefer
 ence right of renewal to such prior
 lessees. As I have before stated,
 your application to lease the lands
 formerly held by Hillman and Graves
 was based upon your residence CT d
 homestead This homestead was
 patented to you by the United States on December 4, 1903. and has been privately owned real estate for near
 ly seventeen years. 1 cannot agree
 with your contention and I do not
 believe by any stretch of the law
 that it would be so determined, that
 you are now occupying a United
 States homestead It is true that
 your real estate holdings adjoin the
 state lands in controversy for a dis
 tance of one-quarter of mile. Tn that immediate locality you also own
 more than 1000 acres of patented
 land, and your self and members of your family hold approximately 2600
 acres of state land under lease. I
 You VII doubtless recall that you
 appeared in person and also were represented by the law firm of Bull
 lard and Jacobs, before a full meet ing of the state land department, and were allowed to present your case on its alleged equities. The case was heard by the department, not so much as to the legal question involved, but rather from the stand point of equities. Upon such hear ing, the department. by unani- mCus vote of it's five members, or dered that renewal leases be issued to Hillman and Graves. In other words, I believe I am correctly stat Ing the decision of the department, when I say that the conclusion of It's members was that MT. Hillman was in reality the homesteader and not yourself Granting, for the sake of argument, that you are occupying a United States homestead adjoining state lands, and granting further for the sake of argument that the pref erence right to lease. granted by law to an adjoining homesteader, is SUI -perior to the preference right to re- lease, issued prior to such home stead preference right amendment to the state land code, then under such amendment the preference right of the homesteader to lease is only for such number of adjoining acres as is necessary for the person al use of such homesteader."
 Taking into consideration the num- Der of acres owned and leased by you, the department unanimously de- 1 cided that the presentation of evi- 1 dence in your behalf did not show that any necessity existed in your case and that the equities were ip 1, favor of the prior lessees, HillYan and Graves There were several l outstanding facts, my dear Mrs | Fike, which impelled me to vote l with the other members of the land l board in determining your case, first: that you were not in reality homesteader as contemplated by the | statute; second: that MT. Fillman i fell within the classification; third: | that being the owner and lessee of l state lands, you were not entitled to ! the further consideration asked; | fourth: that when the facts were presented to the land board. there | was no other course then open to me but to vote according to the require. ments of the law and in consonance with my feeling that Hillman and Graves had a superior right to the 1 use of those lands.
 Sincerely yours,
 THOS. E. CAMPBELL