St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-09-04
A RAID ON DEADWOOD,
Made by Couple of Men Who Located a
Mining Claim in the
Town.
Secretary Muldrow in an Exhaustive De-
cision Says the Plaintiffs Have
No Rights.
Postmaster General Villas stops for
Days Visiting at Eau
Claire, Wis.
Proceedings of the Blue Earth County
PrOhibitiOnfs:s--A Army
Intelligence.
Deadwood's Town Site.

Specisl to the Globe.
WASHINGTON. Sept. Secretary La
mar decided to- day the motion of William
Pratt and Joe Violin for rehearing of their
old case, settled some months ago, involv
ing part OF the town site of DeadwOod.
The secretary says there is no good reason
now for opening the case.
Following is the text OF the decision:
Department of the Interior. Washington,
Sept. S.-Pratt and Violin mineral entry.
Motion for rehearipg. To the commissioner
OF the general land office-Sir: | have before
me the motion of William w Pratt and James
Violin, alleged cO-ownerS of = certain placer
claim within the limits of the townSite OF
DeadwOOd. Oak, formerly covered by mineral
entry No. 63, for rehearing and review or
the decision of this department made Dec. 10,
1881. holding that said land was not valuable
for minerals. II appears that in contro-
verSy between the TOWNSHIP OF DeadwoOd.
whose entry was made in 1878, and certain
mineral claimants, a hearing was had III 1879
concerning the character of the lands covered
by the mining claim. and among others con-
corning the character of the land herein in
question. At said hearing Pratt and Violin
were represented, and testimony was offered
in support Of and against their claim. The
case WAS decided in the local Office and in
your Office, and when it was pending an APP
l.. 1850, they made their mineral entry. The
allowance of said entry appears to have been
irregular and improper, for maniIeStly the
local officers were without jurisdiction to
permit it, when the question of the
RIGHT CP THE APPLICANTS
TO make the entry had al -e1dy been formally
investigated and was pending before the sec
Rotary. Accordingly after the rendition of
the SecretaryS decision of Dec. 49, 1888,
aforesaid, which found that Pratt and Volns'
claim was not valuable for minerals, and in
pursuance Of the directions therein to dispose
of the mineral claims in accordance with It's
findings, your Office cancelled mineral entry
No 63 and so notified the local officers on
aug. 5. 1882. The motion now before me Tor
g review and rehearing OF said decision and
for the reinstatement of said entry rests
the several grounds hereinafter referred 10.
The first ground is SO-called newly dis
covered evidence" which consists in the ath-
davis of two persons declaring that they
have personal knowledge that the land has
produced gold in paying quantities and Of
these witnesses the applicants say that they
had no knowledge 1T the time Of the hearing
in 1879, and they further say that supposng
the burden Of proof to be
on the towusite claimants. they
did not then procure the number of witnesses
which they otherwise would have procured.
There is no showing that they could not have
produced this evidence at the hearing, or that
they were in any wise prevented from pre-
senting their case fully, except by their own
neglect. Under the principles OF law govern
ing motions for new trials therefor these
parties are not entitled to 4 consideration of
this evidence The second ground assigned
is error in holding that the burden of proof at
said hearing was on the mineral claimants.
In said decision il was held that the burden
of proof was on him who alleges the mineral
character of land not returned as mineral
and already sold TO townsite company. Said
ruling has been unifOrmalIy followed by the
department for years, and in my judgment is
sOLIDLY FOUNDED.
on legal principles. The third ground of review
is that as the land IN question was known to
be valuable for mineral at the date of town.
site entry. the government was without
jurisdiction to sell it to the townsite COM
pany. OF this it is only necessary to say that
said decision found that the land was not val
liable for minerals. The fourth ground is that
as Pratt and Violin had not made application
for entry at the date when the hearing was
ordered, it was not competent for the land
department to make them parties. A
sufficient answer to this would be that they
consented to the jurisdiction, but further it
is clear that the land department has juris-
diction to inquire at all times into the
title by which a person claims
possession of Il portion of the public
domain. The fifth ground is that the town
site claim was in the nature of an adj
verse claim and should have been tested in
the courts. / think it clear that when the
government had made sale of this land to the
town site company it was entirely competent
for the land department to adjudicate on the
rights OF any person setting up subsequent
claim to it as mineral land. The sixth ground
of review is, that as mineral entry No. SO
was regularly made by the local officers it
was error to cancel it summary under said
decision. I have stated above that the entry
was irregularly made, and l think the cancel
latiOn of it was entirely proper. The sew
enth ground is. that it is not competent or
the commissioner to
CANCEL CASH ENTRY
allowed by the local officers. The power and
authority of the commissioner TO cancel an
entry errOneously allowed has been uni
fornly maintained by the department and
published to that effect. The question is
now beyond the range of discussion. A mo-
ton for review filed at so great distance
Of time from the date OF the decision and
from the date in which it was carried into
execution should present very strong case
in order to induce the reOpe ming Of q ques-
ton which was then disposed of. The case
presented in the motion before me is OBJ
viously without merit and the motion is de-
uied. II. l. MULDROw, Secretary.