The Clayton news. (Clayton, N.M.) 19??-1954, 1922-08-18

Are the people of Clayton capable
of self-determination? Is it not a
reflection upon the intelligence Of
any citizenship to act in such a
manner in the administration of its
affairs as to infer that they are not
capable of receiving any definite
/ knowledge Of how their problems
are to be solved? Is it the reason
able and The just thing to do to ad-
versely advertise the business in
lcrests of the town, to damage the
business standing without first Civ
ing the business men an opportun-
! ity to speak for themselves and ex-
ercise The right of self-determina-
ti0n?
The above three questions are
presented to the people of Clayton
for their honest and earnest con-
sidcraton
l. Are the people of Clayton cap
able of lf-determination? Should
the citizenship of this town have a
voice in its municipal affairs or
should they be subject to the ruling
of a very few? Each two years the
people are asked to designate their
preference for their board. This
they did last April, from the candi-
dates that offered themselves, and in
so doing, thus designated five men
as their representatives in whom
they had implicit confidence and
trust. These men became the Off
cial representatives of the people of
Clayton, to act in their behalf, to
promote their general welfare thru
the conduct of the business affairs
of their city. This did not however,
prevent the people from a voice in
the city government neither did it,
for this period of time, prevent them
from exercising their inalienable,
God-given right to have a voice in
the determination of their affairs.
There is crisis present, and there
is pending today a cause, No. 5879,
in the District Court, thus styled
DR.. Chas. f. Milligan, C. E. Keller
and ID. A. Paddock, plaintiffs, VS.. Viii
y lage of Clayton, defendant. Petition
for Receivership-O. P. Easterwood
Atty. for plaintiff. The people should
rise in their might and demand the
reasons for The above styled action
: being brought and to know what will
thus be gained.
There is some question as to
whether or not the men whose nam
/, es are of record in the pending ac-
! ton authorized them to be used. The
: columns of The News are open to
any explanation they might wish to
offer for this liberty. But was this
action brought because the wishes
of the people were favorable? Were
the people consulted? Do the ma
jority Of the property owners of this
town know that this petition has
been filed, or has one of two mer
undertaken to determine what the
people Of Clayton need and what
! they must do? Did the city Council
] sanction this officially?
What is the motive of the whole
= procedure? These men who dire
n plaintiffs in the case can only bring
y unfavorable comment upon them
S selves since they are not creditors
n and do not stand to suffer financia
IS loss in any amount. No public meet.
ing has been held. The matter hai
i not been thoroughly presented t
Il the people in mass meeting or thru
r. the columns of ClaytOn's papers
d Now the question; Are the citizens
g, of Clayton capable of having som'
e voice in their government? Have
r. they the right TO speak for them
selves? If this action has been TAX.
g en- freely and voluntarily upon thu
y part of these men, are not these meI
d casting a reflection upon the intelli
gence of every resident of Clayton
\ Are they not saying by their ac
that you are not capable to know
your needs? Not only that, but you
present board of Trustees have n,
If say in the matter, They were elect
if ed as your representatives, there
fore if they thought it necessary T.
have a receiver appointed, why no
r. the board take action in behalf o
If the people rather than individuals
The secrecy with which the Who'll
3, matter is handled might lead one I
" believe that some ulierior motiv
% prompted these plaintiffs in film
% this petition If the people of Clay
Ig Ton, without a hearing permit thi