Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1886-09-10
The DEADWooD TOWNSHIP.


Decision IN an fniportant Case by the
Secretary of the Fnteri0r--A Review
OF the Past.
A Washington special says the claim OF
Pratt & Volin for a mineral entry with
In the town site OF Deadwood, which has
been before the department for some
years, and which has lately been before
the secretary ot the interior on a prayer
for rehearlng, was decided yesterday by
the secretary against tho claimants, and
the prayer aenisd La revising the case,
the secretary says:
In controversy between the town
site of Deadwood, whose entry was made
in 1873, and certain mineral claimants,
hearing vas had in 1879 concerning
the character of the lands covered bv
the mining CLAIMS, and others con-
cerping the lands here in question.
While 1t was pending on appeal before
the department, they made their mineral
entry. The allowance OF said entry ap-
pears to have been irregular and improp-
or for manifestly the local officers were
without Jurisdiction topermit it when
the question of right to make the entry
had already been formally investigated,
and was pending before the secretary
Accordingly after rendition of the secre-
tary's decision of Dec. 10, 1881, the
claim was cancelled. The motion now for
review and reneac1ng and reinstatement
rests on the several grounds hereinafter
referred TO. First, "hewly discovered
evidence" which consists in the af1idavits
of two persons declaring that they have
personal knowlege that the land has
prodnced gold N paying quantities. OF
these witnesses the applicants say that
they had no knowledge at the time of
the hearing III 1879; and further. that
supposiag the burden of the proof to be
on the town site claiments, they did not
then procure the number of witnesses
they otherwise would have procared
There is no showing that they could
not have procured this evidence, or that
they were in any wise prevented from
presenting 6 their case fully, except by
their own neglect. The second ground
is error in holding that the burden of
proof was on the mineral claimants. In
said decision it was held that the burden
of proof wes upon him who alleges the
mineral character of land not returned
,
site company. Said ruling hns been
uniformly followed by the department
for years. The third ground is that as
minerals at the date of the town site
entry, the government was without
jurisdiction to remit to the town site
company. OF this it is only necessary to
say thet seid decision found that the
GO nd rop' ~ pol al Ia f,r u,
Fourth, that. as Pratt & Violin had
not made application for entry at the
date when the hearing was ordered, it
was not competent for the land depart
ment to make thes1i parties. 4. suffi-
cient answer would be that they cor-
Hented to the jurisdiction, but further it
is clearer that the land department has
Jurisdiction to inquire at all times into
the title by which person claims pos
session of portion of the public domain.
Fifth, that the town site claim was in
the nature of an adverse claim, and
should have been tested in the courts. I
think it clear that when the government
had made sale of this land it was entirely
competent for the land department to
adjudicate upon it. The sixth ground of
review is that, as the mineral entry was
regularly made it was an error to cancel
it snmmarily under said decision. I pre-
viously stated that the entry was ire
gnlarly made, and think the cancellation
was entirely proper. Seventh, that it
was not competent for the commission er
to cancel cash entry allowed by the
local officers. The power of the commits
sioner to cancel an erroneous entry has
been uniformly maintained. The case
presented in the motion before me is
obviously without merit, and the motion
is therefore denied. q