Arizona Citizen

Now here is as pretty a kettle of fish as ever was seen. In the first place we ask the sinful reader to turn to our first page and calmly read the article under the above heading. After reading that, we ask the same sinful reader to hear us.

In some late numbers of the Washington Chronicle we found interesting accounts of the great scientific curiosity called the Tucson Meteorite, and the account which we give on our first page is substantially as it appeared in the articles mentioned. We were very glad to hear of this wonderful aerolite and in reveries of imagination we had pictured that sometime in the lapse of ages past this strange visitant had fallen like Lucifer from the scenes of its birth, childhood, first boots and maturer life, and, choosing Tucson among all the favored cities of the earth, had taken this for its resting place. We felt that such conduct was very fitting and proper. We had not been the favorites of fortune to any extent. Other cities had monuments, glue factories, independent newspapers, and men who lived solely for others but who, through some inscrutable providence, had never been translated. We had none of these, and though we sometimes felt an aching void, we had learned to kiss the rod. We believe though, if one could have pierced the smooth surface of this apparent submission, that away down in the hearts of our best citizens would have been found an unsatisfied, though perhaps morbid, longing for a meteorite.

Recognizing this state of feeling and condition of the popular mind, upon reading the account which we have compiled on our first page, of the great Tucson aerolite, the aching void in our bosom was filled as it never could have been filled merely by the scientific importance of the discovery, and we hastened to share our pleasure with the public.

But there is a thorn in our rose. According to the accounts of some of our oldest citizens, the history of the stone as given in the Washington Chronicle is erroneous in detail, and while the main facts are correct, it seems proper to correct minor circumstances, wrongly stated. From conversation with some of the people of Tucson, who lived here when the fragment of iron was found and when it was sent away,--a period extending from 1857 to 1862 or 3,--the following facts appear. The aerolite was discovered by Senor Ramon Pacheco, on the northwest side of the lower range of the Santa Rita mountains southeast of town. Mr. Pacheco was a worthy blacksmith and had a shop in town. When he found the meteoric mass of iron, it weighed some four or five hundred pounds, was about four feet long, a foot thick, and, having a smooth or flat surface on one end, it occurred to the finder to bring it into town and, by setting it upright in the ground, it would answer very well the purpose of an anvil in his blacksmith shop. Which he did. It was in this blacksmith shop, and in daily use when first discovered and taken notice of by military officers. It was clearly Mr. Pacheco's private property, and he was proud of it. Which was very natural, for where was the smith for miles around who could boast an anvil probably discarded by Vulcan himself. Many a pleasant hour had its earthly owner whiled away, thinking of possible orders for thunderbolts for Jupiter that had been filled from its clear ringing face. To get possession of this desirable relic, Mr. Pacheco says the military promised to supply him a new anvil from the quartermaster's department. Upon this hint and after urgent request, he let them have the Volcanic anvil, and he closes his statement by declaring that since that time he has never seen his aerial anvil, or the quartermaster anvil, nor any consideration or return for either of them or any part thereof.

Let us drop lightness of speech and get down to business. We are unprejudiced in this matter, unless it might be a strong prejudice in favor of anyone who undertakes the frequently thankless task of bringing to light a natural curiosity. But there is something in this which has an unpleasant ring. Mr. Pacheco is a good and truthful citizen, and it should be understood that at the time of this writing and therefore at the time he made his statement about the circumstances of the meteoric anvil being taken from him he had heard nothing of the Washington version. We should regret the necessity of calling the attention of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to the possible injustice done by his label on the meteorite, and we deprecate a Congressional investigation but is there any difference between a statement that a valuable curiosity is found and recognized in a pile of rubbish, on a village back street, and a statement that the same relic is obtained from a worthy and appreciative owner, by an unfulfilled promise of a considerable reward?