Arizona republican., 1920-10-20

30 last. the total acreage of said ex- pired leases being ss1S.65 acres. all be- ing in township 24 south, range 23 east. Hillman and Graves applied for re- newal leases for this acreage during the statutory period therefor. and you applied to lease the same had. The law gives preference right of renewal to such prior lessees. As have before stated. your application to lease the lands formerly held by Hillman and Graves was based upon your residence on a homestead. This homestead was patented to you by the United States on December 4. 1903, and has been privately owned real estate for nearly 17 years. 1 cannot agree with yout contention. and I do not believe by any stretch of the law that it would be so determined, that you are now occupy ing a United States homestead. It is true that your real estate holdings ad- join the state lands in controversy for a distance of one quarter of a mile. In that immediate locality you also own more than 2000 acres of patented land and yourself and members of your family hold approximately 2600 acres of state land under lease.
 You will doubtless recall that YOU appeared in person. and also were rep resented by the law firm of Bullard & Jacobs. before a full meeting of the state land department, and was al- lowed to present your case on it's all legged equities. The case was heard by the department. not so much as to the legal questions involved. but rather from the standpoint of equities. Upon such hearing. the department. by a unanimous vote of it's five members. ordered that renewal leases be issued to Hillman and Graves. In other words l believe l am correctly stating the decision of the department when I say that the conclusion of it's members was that Mir. Hillman was in reality the homesteader and not yourself. Grant ing. for the sake of argument. that you are occupying a United States home stead adjoining state lands, and grant | ing further, for the sake of argument that the preference right to lease granted by law to an adjoining home steader. is superior to the preference right to release granted by law to the | prior lessee, 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 'sucf ' number of adjoining acres as is neces- sary for the personal use of sucf | homesteader"
 Taking into consideration the num- Der of acres owned and leased by you the department unanimously decided | that the presentation of evidence 1T your behalf did not show that any ne | cessity existed in your case and that | the equities were in favor of the priol | lessees. Hillman and Graves There | were several outstanding facts. mN dear Mrs. Fike, which impelled me tC vote with the other members of tn, land board, in determining your case | First, that you were not in reality | homesteader. as contemplated by tn, i statute; second. that Mrs. Hillman fel within that classification; third, tha- being the owner and lessee of stat, l lands. you were not entitled to tn, further consideration asked; fourth that when the facts were presented tt l the land board there was no othei | course open to me but to vote accord i ing to the requirements of the law, an, l in consonance with my feeling tha Hillman and Graves had a superio l right to the use of these lands.
 Sincerely yours.
 THOMAS F. CAMPBELL
 Governor. | Mrs. l.. L. Fike
 | Douglas. Arizona.
 !