OCR Text |
Show MORE OF OLD TITLES. ".Sojourner" Hep lies (o -One ho K uots.' Salt I. ki: Citv, Sept. 4, 17:. FAth.rs 11 nihl; lam invited by "One Who Knows" to '"conie aL'ain' This L- plucky in 1 him, if not pugili.-tic, and would seem to indicate that he has lo.-t none of his perseverance and that, whatsoever else may le said of him, he Iijs no intention of t egging: quarter. quar-ter. Let me also suggest to him that he must not "beg tlie question." i have no controversy with him upon tiie facts of tho cabc; I Like them as .-tali d by him, or as they mav be inferred to be from lus three lirt que.-tions. My communication of the 3d instant is in the nature of : a demurrer. Asuming the facts to ! be true as stated by him, I insist they ! do not establish the inference which he draws from them. Hitherto the argument lias been conducted by interrogatories. Let me now state the case in plain language. lan-guage. I think it is fairly diducible from the iirst questions of "One Who Knows," that there were certain par-iiw par-iiw wlui wi'rc it t certain rjeriod in possession of the Emma mine, who claimed to own it under valid tides, and who had applied fof a patent upon it; and that 1'ark & Co. belonged among them, or were the agents of them; and that there was also another party, who claimed to own the mine under Certain ail verse "old titles," but that they were not in possession and had filed- then- protest to the patent; that in this luttor party were Lyon, Lent and ''One Who Knows;" that for SUH),l00, Lyon withdrew his protest and allowed" the patent to be issued; that for 100,000, Lent de clined to expose any fraud there may have been in the manner of obtaining tho patent, and thus permitted I'ark Lfc Co. to effect a sale in London; and that when the contest between the two parties came on for trial before the court in Salt Lake, the managers of the Emma Hill Consolidated Company, Com-pany, which is the organized claimant ; and owner of these so-called "old titles," did, for the sum of $100,000, consent to have a verdict rendered against their own company and in favor of tlie purchasers and present owners of the Emma mine, thus for ever putting at rest nil controversy about title between the two parties. Tlie fact that the first party, or some members of it, or some agents of it. paid to designated members of the second party, certain specified sums of money, for the purpose of consummating their enterprise, is urged by "One Who Kno,vs" as proof of the "validity and equity" of these "old titles." I insist that it is evidence of the contrary proposition; propo-sition; and, taken in connection with the rumor that the mine was sold for $3,000,000 establishes loyond controversy contro-versy the sham valuo ami black-mailing character of these pretended-" pretended-" old titles;" aiid I therefore ask, in substance, and, I think, significantly, significant-ly, why should these " old titles," if they were valid, have been surrendered surren-dered lor $150,000, or in the aggregate aggre-gate $3-30,000, and all control and ownership of the mine abandoned by these claimants and iprotestants, when the mine was -worth $o, 000, 000? The real owners maintained .their title to tho mine at Washington and in Salt Lake, and would be satisfied with nothing less than full value for it, while the siiam claimants betray their want of confidence in the validity vali-dity of their ''old .titles" when they one-fourteenth of the sale. Wc have all read of the wisdom of Solomon in his decision between the women claiming the same child. "The false claimant, in the unmistakable spirit of a genuine black-mailer, was content with only a portion of the child, while the actual mother would have the whole or none. But the scene changes : This "knowing one," with the facility of an old stager, shifts his ground and gives us a fresh set of pretended facts, and he insinuates that, upon the question of facts, I have "put my foot in it." Let us see: We have now the "slipping oil"' of Lyons to Washington and the selfishness of Lent in providing for himself instead of standing by his comrades. We also learn that ' the ofheers of the Emma Hill Consolidated Company Compa-ny owned nine-tenths of all the adverse ad-verse "old titles." In my former communication I asked if these officers offi-cers did not betray their stockholders; if they were themselves the owners of nine-tenths of the property! I now ask, did they not betray tlivmxclvm when thev surrendered nine-tenths of $3,000,000 of property for $100,000? But "knowing one" hints at some mysterious tamc he is playing, a statement of which will probably appear ap-pear in his next development of ! tacts. Whether it is a game of eu chre or the more appropriate, as it is-his is-his cherished game of bluff I have to learn; and taking the hint, I forbear to encroach on forbidden ground. Wc have also commingled in the paraphernalia of facts "one hundred revolvers and fifty Henry rifles."-How rifles."-How strange it is that this timid litigant, liti-gant, in the fervor of injured itno-ratce, itno-ratce, did not also add, "Is this a dagger I sec before me?" I suspect the revolvers and rifles were only in themind's-eye ol a guilty conscience, as was the dagger in that of Macbsth's. At any rate they did not decide the controversy, nor intimidate the "knowing ones." The case was in the courts and the eagerness with which the old titlers clutched the $100,000, in settlement of it, convicts them of the insecurity of their claim. In reply to my fourth interrogatory he attempts to hide the shame of black-mailing behind the charge of ' 'robberv. ' ! Dare he then confess pic of "tit for tat," ask for quits all around? With this understanding I Like my leave of him for ever, sug-, gosling that upon all questions of facts involved in the case, I refer to "Piute," who seems to be thoroughly familiar with its history, and 'who, I have no doubt, will be able to convince your readers that the whole theory of "One Who Knows' is a tissue of misrepresentations. Sojoojisei;. . |