Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-08-09
OF FACTS,

The London Mining Journal On the
"RichmOnd Consolidated Mining
Company"
The London Mining Journal publishes
o loading article under the above caption,
which we are not disposed to discuss, for
the subject of which it treats has been so
banded about and so thoroughly aired
that it is already clearly understood by all
who have taken any interest in it. 1t has
become an old story and very dry. In re-
opening the matter the Journal, however,
takes such strange grounds and arrives at
such unjust conclusions that its article
cannot be allowed to pass uncriticised.
1t not only assumes that the Supreme
Court of Nevada has made a false decision,
but intimates plainly the apprehension
that American law may not give to foreign
capitalists the protection they are entitled
to; in other words, that if the Supreme
Court of the United States should sustain
the judgment Of the Supreme Court of Ne
vada, its decision would be contrary to
justice and SO rendered because one of the
parties to the suit is a foreign corporation.
Such a slur is wholly gratuitous and I'M
journalistic. We are certain that what
ever the learned Judges of the Supreme
Court of the United States determine in
the case to come before them will be &C.
cording to their judgment of what is law
and equity in the premises. The Journal
has no reason to entertain any idea to the
contrary.
In its issue of July 90, the article en-
kiflal ssRiobpanrI To-,o1;l,+ol nI,n:nu
Company appears, wherein the status of
the Albion Richmond litigation, and what
must evidently be the result, are fore
Swallowed in a manner which, to the editor
of that journal, seems entirely satisfactory,
but which, upon inspection, will be found
to be sadly at variance with the best con-
sidered legal opinions of the American
Courts, in the light of adjudicated cases.
1t is an old legal maxim that ''where
our premises are wrong, our conclusions
are sure to be wrong" and it is evident
from the article in question that the edi-
tor of the Mining journal is laboring
under a Misrepresentation in regard to
some Of the facts upon which the Supreme
Court Of Nevada predicated its opinion
and judgment.
The Journal correctly states the case,
and the law applicable thereto, in so far as
it asserts that the Richmond Company
applied for a patent; that Rose ct al. pro-
tested and brought suit; that all other
adverse claimants, failing to protest,
waived their adverse claims, and that a
patent must be issued to either the appli-
cant or the adverse claimants.
But it further says: 'To suppose the
United States Government would grant, |
AFTER OPPOSITION AND TRIAL, o patent
to the Richmond Company and sub
sequently confiscate and regrant to
another. would indeed be selling its land
more than once, and would, therefore, be
against all land principles of law and
Justice 1t is in this paragraph of the
article in question that the mischief
occurs, which overthrows all the logic
evinced in that which precedes it. In the
first place, there had never been any trial
of the rights of the parties in the suit
originally begun by Rose ct al. upon the
patent filed by them against the patent
application of. the Richmond Company, |
and therefore the rights of the respective
parties had not been determined Sin a
Court of competent jurisdiction" at the
time the patent was issued, as provided by
Act of Congress, hence the assumption of
the officers of the United States Land
Office of the function to issue a patent
while the suit was still pending and unde-
termined was in excess of their jurisdiction,
without authority of law, and absolutely
void. We presume it will scarcely be con- |
tended at the bar that the acts Of any Off
Ger without jurisdiction is not a mere
nullity. In the case under consideration, |
the Act of Congress provides that when a
protest is filed and suit commenced within
the time allowed by law, call proceedings
shall be stayed to await the determination
of the matter in Court" in other words,
until the rights of the respective parties
shall have been determined by a Court of
competent Jurisdiction. Had this been
done, as intimated by the Mining journal,
and o patent issued by the United States,
we fondly believe that even an American
would contend that the patent could
not be successfully assailed. But before
the suit was determined, and while it was
still pending in Court, the Land officers, |
in the very teeth Of the statute, issued q
and in effect ousted the Court of
Jurisdiction, whore the law vested it and
it is this patent, so issued, that the Su-
preme Court of Nevada declared void, be-
cause contrary to end without authority |
of law, and the Supreme Court of the
States is as sure to follow this
as that the case will be presented to
it for final determination. We should be
to have the legal opinion Of the
Mining Journal in the light of all the
facts, instead of its conclusions upon a
statement of some and q gross per-
version Of the rest.