Arizona republican., 1920-05-13

was no reason why it might not have been renewed.
 On cross examination the witness said that Mir. Moeur had taken no part in this proceeding and that so far as he knew NIT. Moeur was not cognizant at the time the application was granted of the forgery in the application.
 Would Defend Dummy Practice
 Mir. Bolton also described dummy leases" of which he gave an illustra- ton. He said that John Gleason of Graham county came to him to make acknowledgement of 25 applications. They were in blank; that is, the names of the applicants were to be filled in later. On the back of the applications there was a printed form of power of attorney. Mir. Bolton said that he ac- companied Gleason to the town of Glee- son. where Gleason went to one man after another until he had secured 25 to affix their signatures each to the application and the power of attorney form Later Gleason returned with 25 more such applications. That time he could only secure 20 names but he said that that was enough: that a5 sections of land would meet his requirements. On cross examination the witness said that he had no reason to believe that Mir. Moeur was aware that these were dummy leases.
 Mir. Ward. though representing neither the commissioner nor the land board. here desired to be heard as the attorney for the cattlemen's associa- tion and to defend the practice the old law made necessary, of resorting to dummy leases. Without them the schools would have derived no benefit from the lands. The same practice had been followed in all states where the short sighted policy of which the state had recently divested itself had been adopted.
 Impersonates Dead Woman
 Justice Bolton volunteered informa ton regarding another transaction which he said. though an absolute forg- cry, was not a reflection upon either the commissioner or the land board One day. he said, man with whom he was well acquainted, brought to his office two persons. each making app plication for lease. One of them was an aged lady, who was introduced tC 1 him as Mrs. Eunice Lutz; the other was her son, whose name was given as 1 Fred I.utz. The witness said that, re. ] lying upon the introduction Of his | friend, he had taken their acknowled ge- ments. He learned later that they were 1 personating the real Mrs. Lutz ana her son. At o'clock on the mornins of that very day Mrs. Lutz had diee in the state of Washington and her soT was with her at the time.
 But. said the witness, neither the commissioner nor the members of tho board more than himself. could have ! been eognizant of the fact that forg l cry had been committed; there wa. nothing in the transaction that would have warned the commissioner agains the granting of an application ss l brought before him.
 At 9:30 o'clock Mir. Struckmeyer saiC he had no more witnesses to offer tha night. He had. however, received { telegram from San Francisco from man who had learned of the hearing and desired m opportunity to appear before the board. The governar. too had received some telegrams from per, sons who were interested and wanted l to be heard. One was from Attorue. Robert F. Morrison of Prescott whs stated that he represented E. B. Perrin of San Francisco. who would be pleased to appear before the board. If was sug gested. now that the news of the hear. ing had gone out and was spreading il ever widening circles, that no doub ! there would be other witnesses whi
 would want to appear. It was thel decided to continue the hearing unti next Monday night.