The border vidette., 1920-10-09
A SCATHiNG RE6UkE.
Editor Dunbar's Weekly:
 Kindly give the enclosed letter space in your paper:

space in your paper:
 "September 27, 1920. Thomas D. Campbell, Esquire.
 "State House, Phoenix, Ariz.
 "Si: In a political speech de livered by you at Tucson on the evening of the 23rd day of Sep -tember, you made certain state ments that are so far removed from the truth that l feel, that in justice to myself, should call your attention to the misState- ment of facts, relative to my acts as state land commissioner of the State of Arizona.
 For the purpose of this let ter, and in order that I may not appear discourteous in the lang, uage by me used, l have chosen the word 'mis statement" when in my opinion shorter word would better express the degree of indiscretion of which you have been indicted. I do be- lieve, however, that I am justi- fled in saying that you, either Intentionally misstated the facts. or that your gross ignorance of the affairs of the office of state land commissioner is such as to entitle you to the sympathy of those who heard you.
 Tn delivering the speech herein referred to, you told your hearers that seventy five cattle outfits controlled 92 per cent of the entire lands granted to the state.' or to use your own fig ureS. seventy five cattle outfits controlled 92 per cent of 10, 800, GOO or 9,56O,OOO acres of state land, when, as a matter of fact, the total number of acres of state lands leased and sold to date does not exceed 100000 acres. In other words, accord ing to your statement, seventy five cattlemen control by lease and purchase several million acres more land than have yet been disposed of by the state.
 You also said that state lands were leased by the con- missioner at 3 cents per acre, or the paltry sum of $15O,OOO per annum' In arriving at this con- clusion, if you had only resorted to a simple method of mathe- matics, you would have deter mined that the 9,56O.OOO acres claimed by you to have been leased to seventy five cattlemen at 3 cents per acre would pro- vide a revenue of $286, 600, or $136, ,OOO more than the amount claimed by you to be the total revenue from all state lands.
 You further said to the peo- pie of Tucson that much of this land had beed appraised by the commissioner at S3 per acre and sold at that price, Now, MT. Campbell, I ask you in all seri- 1 ousness, IS it not fact that mo- where in the public land code is there to be found a provision of law whereby the land commis sioner is charged with the duty of, or given authority to fix the sale value of state lands? Is it not a fact that during your in cumbency of the office of chair. man of the state land depart ment, the land commissioner has in no case attempted to assume the authority to make these ap- praisements? Is it not a fact, Mir. Campbell, that the law charges the state land depart ment. of which you are mem Der and chairman, with this re- sponslbility? Is it not a fact that the sale value of grazing state lands is fixed by you as d member and chairman of the state land depar tment? Is it not fact that the records do not disclose single instance where you raised an objection to the value placed upon the states grazing lands by the state land department, of which you are a member?
 You further stated that the land commissioner has selected large tracts of land so located as to suit the convenience of the stock raiser.' To this in dictment I plead guilty. You failed to tell your audiance, however, that this was done for the purpose of acquiring for the state, lands most desired, and thereby insuring a revenue from the same at all times.
 You further stated that there are large tracts of land that !