Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1881-05-22
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. DECISION.
what Professor Raymond Has "a
Say About It.


Professor Raymond was an expert in the
celebrated Eureka Con. Richmond suit.
He is also editor Of the New York En-.
cheering and Mining Journal. In the
last issue Of his paper appears a review Of
the decision Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the above case. We re-
produce the material portions Of the criti-
cism. Professor Raymond, speaking Of
the questions involved in the great con-
test, says:
Apart from various technicalities, which
had but little effect on the main contest,
WI points were chiefly at stake. The first
was the question whether the disputed
ground was a part Of the same lode as that
which the Eureka Company was working
under its patents. There were two ways
OF deciding this. One was to prove a con-
nection in ore between the workings of the
Eureka and those Of the Richmond il the
disputed ground. The other was to DEM
onstrate that both sets Of workings were
within q definite zone, the character Of
which answered the practical conditions Of
a lode, according to the practical usage Of
miners and the meaning of the statutes.
II the questions we're decided in the affirm
alive on either ground, then the Eureka
Company could claim the disputed ground
as lying within the projected and extended
planes drawn through the end-lines OF its
patent surveys. That company relied
mainly upon the second method Of proof.
The other essential issue in the cause
concerned the force Of a compromise
boundary line, previously established be-
tween the two companies. This line was
limited in length On the surface. 1t ran
from one fixed point ON the surface to
another. The Eureka claimed that it
should be considered as indefinitely ex-
tended. The Richmond workings had
crossed under, moi the line itself, but the
extention Of it. They had. SO to speak,
gone around the end Of the boundary.
The issue thus raised depended in one
sense directly upon the question of the
unity OF the lode. That is to say, If both
companies were working upon one vein,
the compromise boundary dividing their
claims at the outcrop would necessarily be
extended to divide them at all depths. II,
on the other hand, the Richmond were
working a separate vein, which did not
have its apex within the ground bounded
by the (unextended) compromise line, it
might claim the right to follow this vein
on its dip as one that had never been coded.
Even on this hypothesis, the Eureka con-
tested such a claim, as opposed to the
spirit and only possible reasonable mean
ing Of the compromise agreement.
The Circuit Court decided, on both the
main points we have stated, in. favor OF
the Eureka Company; and the case was
carried to the Supreme Court. Mr.. Thos.
Wren, in his argument for the Richmond
Cnrnnanu datiuaraI hafowa khn Ia4t1~ -,
bunal, says:
1.-The Court below finds that this en-
tire one is a lode and the whole case
rests, in my judgment, upon that question.
But if that zone is q lode in the meaning
in which those terms are used in the Acts
OF Congress, then the case, perhaps, should
be affirmed. But If that zone is not q lode
in the sense in which those terms are used
in the Acts Of Congress, then there is
nothing found outside Of that upon which
this judgment can rest"
Mr.. Wren was right. 1t was necessary
for the Eureka Company, in q suit in eject
ment, to prove its own title. The Rich
mond Company might or might not have a
title il it was q trespasser, not on the
Eureka but upon some other owner, not
party to the suit, the Eureka could not re-
cover. But the title Of the Eureka de-
pended upon its patents and these could
only cover the ground in dispute if they
covered the apex of the legal vein to which
it belonged. But il the mineralized zone
OF limestone was a vein up to the Rich
mond boundary, or if all the ore bodies up
to that boundary belonged to one legal
vein, then the Eureka title, on either count
Of the pleadings, was good.
The decision Of the Supreme Court does
not in set terms answer the question which
Mr.. Wren declares to be the only one in the
case. 1t says:
Whether the limestone was or not,
within the meaning Of the Acts Of Con-
gress, and the understanding Of miners, q
allied or tal-bearing rock as distin-
guished from the barren walls in which 1t
was inclosed. 1t descended into the earth
on an angle, and unless parties in working
ii could follow its course as it went down,
they could not avail themselves to the full
extent Of the wealth it contained. When,
therefore, we find parties c~ontending about
their rights to its possession, and finally
agreeing on q line of division between
themselves which shall be continued
downward toward the center of the earth,
the conclusion is irresistible that the line
was to be extended downward through the
property in its course toward the center Of
the earth"
In other words, whether this zone
answers the set definition Of a lode or not,
il is bounded like o lode, it dips into
earth like o lode. it must be followed in
working like a lode, and boundaries drawn
across 1t, to settle titles and end disputes,
must be extended just like boundaries
drawn across a lode. We do not wonder
that the august tribunal adds, This
disposes Of the case"
In avoiding to give an unnecessary def
milton Of q lode, which might be used as q
basis Of verbal clubbing in some future
case, the intention Of the Court appears
to have been to leave all other contests to
be decided, 40 this has been, on their
merits.
One or two features Of the arguments
before the Supreme Court may become
subjects OF comment on q future occasion.
We conclude the present article with an
acknowledgment required by justice. The
final victory in this contest puts the
browning laurels upon Mr.. h. L. Thorn
ton, who, though ably supported by such
eminent lawyers as CARRIER n Heyden-
feldt, may be fairly said to have carried
the active management in the case for the
Eureka Company, and to have displayed q
mastery OF details, q skill in tactics, and q
force in argument, without which expert
testimony and legal acumen might have
proved, in so difficult and, in some re-
spects, complicated q matter. unable to
make the right appear.
els Dot 30 ?"
1t 10 related Of Diogenes, the celebrated
evpic philosopher. that, in attempting 0
voyage to samos, he was captured BY a