OCR Text |
Show - OLD TITLKS AGAIN. Three more ticMioiiN unci then Another one. Ktlifnr fl'tabl : - Three very sugge.-tive questions ! appeared in the columns of your paper of the '2d inst., which the pro-pounder pro-pounder promises to supplement with three additional ones in case they should be answered. . J am totally ignorant of the facts j which may be involved in these in- ten-oga lories, and hence am unable to reply categorically to either of them; but with your permission, Messrs. Editors, will lake tho lilierty of putting three inquiries to "One Who Kuows,"which are suggested by his own: First. If there was amj validity or equity in the "old litlc"to the Emma j mine, why shouUl Lyon withdraw his j protest for one hundred nnd fifty : thousand dollars and allow ..Park, v ; Co. to sell it for millions? j Second. After the patent was J taken to London, if all was not right ; and son nil, why hull Lent accept! of one hundred thousand dollars for not exposing any fraud there may have been in obtaining the patent and thus permit Park it Co. to consummate con-summate the sale? Thinl.- After the patent was over one year old, ami 1'ark and his company, com-pany, owners, were in full possession of the mine, if tho Emma Hill Con-, solidatal Company had any title to : the property, legal or equitable, 'did j not the officers- of that Consolidated i Company basely betray the conn-; dence placed in them by the stock- j holders, when they consented to barter away millions in value for the paltry sum of one hundred thousand dollars ? This is the light in which the questions quest-ions of the f2d hist, are viewed by a stranger. One other question is quite ns forcibly forc-ibly suggested by the premises. Wherein did tho claimants, of those so-callal "prior titles," depart in the slightest decree from the beaten path of the professional black-mailer ? . SOJOI-RNEH. |