Las Vegas age. [volume] (Las Vegas, Nev.) 1905-1947, 1928-08-30
KYLE CANYON ROAD.
ARGUMENT RENE WE'D.
SCREED Is OWN
BEST EVIDENCE

The AGE suggests that the
very best evidence as to whether
the letter of E. w. Griffith, a copy
of which is published herewith
as part of his statement, is as
stated by the AGE in its issue of
August IL and quoted in the ad-
joining column, such, a pitiful
exhibition of personal spite and
petty quibbling that it is hardly
worthy of serious notice" is
careful reading of the letter it
self.
In the interest of truth and
justice and in the spirit of the
utmost fairness, the AGE urges
that the public read Mr. Grit
fith's letter from beginning to
end.
The screed is too long to be
answered here in detail. There
are however, a few points on
which the Age feels compelled to
comment.
In the first place the only in
terest which the county has in
this controversy, is whether or
not the public has acquired, by
long use and the expenditure of
public funds, the right to unres-
tricted travel over the Charleston
Park road.
In this connection we wish to
recall to our readers that not so
long ago Mr.. Griffith solicited the
county commissioners to improve
the road in question and that he
urged the Chamber of Commerce
to use its influence to that end.
In accordance with Mr.. Griffith's
request and because the Age, the
Chamber of Commerce and the
public generally believed it the
duty of the county to provide the
best possible road to the noun
tain forests, the county for sew
eral years improved the road. It
is obvious that this expenditure
was for the benefit of the whole
road, not one end of it only.
Now as to the more personal
remarks of Mr. Griffith:
c. P. Squires and r. W. Martin
with the full APPROVAL and en-
couragement of Forest Service Of
ficialS. about a year ago made ap-
plication for the use of water
from Little Falls (hitherto not
filed upon) and for permit for
the erection Of summer homes on
a piece of land to which we had
been informed by the Forest Ser
vice Mr.. Griffith had no claim.
This was a perfectly legitimate and
laudable enterprise which was un-
deraken without the slightest in
tention of injuring Mr.. Griffith or
any of his interests.
The county road policy as to
improving the Charleston Park
road had long previously been
settled. The fact of the applica-
ton of SquireS and Martin had
nothing to do with it whatever.
Mr.. Griffith in his statement
further says:
For some time Squires has
published a series of vicious at
tacks against me in the Age, con-
tanning Misrepresentation and
false statements relating to the
matter"
willingly leave it to the judg-
ment of the public whether the
Age has ever published one word
about Mr.. Griffith or this con-
troverSy which was not the truth.
The Age has endeavored to stick
to the facts, and whatever the
personal animuS shown by Mr..
GriFfith will treat this CONTROVERSY
from the standpoint of public po-
Icy and not as personal quar-
rel.
Again the Age joins with Mr..
Griffith in urging the public to
read Mr.. Griffith'S letter as the
best evidence of where the animus
lies.
Space prohibits any extended
comment. However we cannot re-
frain from expressing the opinion
that Mr.. Griffith's sneering al
lusions to the county commission
ers is entirely unjustified. Fur
thermore, the county commission
ers never have spent one dollar
to advance the private interests
of SquireS and have never been
requested so to do.
Either the Kyle Canyon road is
a public road or 1t is not. It
should be easy to determine its
legal status without all this fuss.
What the poor workingman
wants this year Is no+ a full din
pnr YooiI hY1t mora OlaaoS IN r1ortr