Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-06-29

I, Chas. ]. r. Buttlar, County Clerk
and e1-officio Clerk of the District Court,
Sixth Judicial District, in and for said
county, do hereby certify that the above
and foregoing is a correct and true copy of
the original matter thereof, which now
remains in my Office at Eureka, County
and State aforesaid.
49, In testimony whereof, 1 have
SEAL hereunto set my hand and at.
my office in the town of Eureka, this goth
day of June, A. D. 1882.
CHAs. ]. R. BUTTLAR, County Clerk,
and ex-oficio Clerk of the District Court,
Sixth Judicial District, Eureka Co., New.
So much having been said in regard to
the status of the litigation between the AL
bion Con. Mining Company and the Rich
mond Mining Company, an Exchange re-
porter was detailed to interview Senator
Stewart, attorney for the Albion Con.
Mining Company, who has just returned
from Eureka, and we give the interview in
full for the benefit of the public;
Reporter-What is the present status of
the controversy between the Richmond
Mining Company and the Albion Con.
Mining Company?
Senator Stewart - The Albion Con.
Company ia in possession of and working
the mine in dispute and cannot be dis
turbed in its possession, unless the Su-
preme Court Of the United States re-
verses the decision of the Supreme Court
of Nevada.
Rep.-May not other suits be brought
and injunotions obtained by the st. Law
renee or some other outside company?
lN-.,% VNlaA Ia t,,,nOcathtnt
and that you may understand why no n
can interfere with the Albion Con. Com
pany, whilethe Judgment Of the Supreme
Court Of Nsvada remains in force, 1t is
necessary to state more fully the sources
Of title Of the respective parties. The
mine in controversy was mineral land of
the public domain. The statutes OF tho
United States provide that q locator upon
such lands may procure q patent by COM
plying with the local laws and Acts Of Con-
gress. The United States statutes also pro-
vide that any person having an adverse
claim must present the same during the
period of publication of the notice of the ap-
plication for patent, which must be pub
lished for a period Of sixty days, and that
all claims that are not presented during
that period are waived. The statute fur
Their provides that when a protest is filed,
the protestant, to preserve his rights,
shall bring suit within thirty days there
after, to determine the right of possession
in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and
that after the Court has decided which of
the two parties-the applicant or the pro-
testant-is entitled to the mine, the Com
missioner of the General Land Office shall
issue a patent to the successful party IN
that action. The Richmond Company
.u.lo 90 ,oo1;ootiop for q patant tn tha
ground in controversy. Rose and others,
the grantors Of the Albion Con. Company,
protested and brought suit. No other
claimants did the same, and therefore,
after the time for protesting and bringing
suit had expired, all other adverse claims
were waived; SO that there can be no other
title brought into the controversy. The
suit of Rose and others against the Rich
mond Company was tried, and it was final
ly decided by the Supreme Court OF Ne
vada that Rose and others were entitled to
the possession of the premises in contro-
versy, and to receive a patent therefor.
The Government of the United States, like
any private individual, can only sell its
land once; and the decree of the Supreme
Court of Nevada is to the effect that the
Government must sell the premises in
controversy to Rose and others. If the
decree is affirmed by the Supreme Court
of the United States a patent will issue to
the Albion Con. Mining Company, the
successor in interest Of Rose and others,
and that will be the end of the contro'
versy. On the contrary, If that decree if
reversed, patents have already issued te
the Richmond Company and its title un'
der such patents will be perfect. In Other
! words, the judgment OF the Supreme
| Court Of the United States must necessa
| rily determine the whole title to the prem
ises in controversy in the action now pend
ing. Every other possible title or claim
| to the premises has been waived.
Rep.-When will the Supreme Court Of
| the United States decide the case, and
| what do you think will be the probable
result2
Senator Stewart The case will b
| reached in the Supreme Court OF thu
| United States, in the ordinary course o.
| practice, in between three and four years
As to the probable result I, of course
think the judgment of the Supreme Cour'
| of Nevada is correct and will be affirmed
Rep.-Have all the injunctions agains'
the Albion Con. Company been dissolved
Senator Stewart-Yes. .
Rep.-And all the other cases continued
Senator Stewart Yes, all the cases hsv'
been continued until after the decision o
| the Supreme Court OF the United States In
the Rose case. They were continued be
cause they involve precisely the same cues
ton that is pending before the Supreme
Court Of the United States. and a decision
in that case determines them all, and de
termines the title to the property, as
have before stated.
Rep.-If you are correct in saying tha
all the injunctions have been dissolved
and that no further action can be taker
against the Albion Con. Company unit
after the decision of the Supreme Court IL
the Rose case, what ID meant by the FOL