The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1888-03-23
THE "kNowN NINE" DECISION.

" In the minds OF those who are 0pposeo 70
the mineral lands of Montana being con-
yeyed to the Northern Pacific under their
land grant, by the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case OF the
Colorado Coal Co. vs. the United States,
which was carried up from the Circuit Court
of Colorado, and the opinion written by
Field. In our opinion it is in no sense .
parallel case to that of the Montana mineral
lands, although the opinion, if applicable to
them, would be disastrous. That portion OF
It under consideration reads thus:
"It is not sufficient, in our opinion, to con-
stitute "known mines" of coal, within the
meaning of the statute, that there should be
merely indications of coal beds or coal fields
of greater or less extent and of greater or
less value, IS shown by outcroppings. The
act Of 1864 evidently contemplates . distinc-
ton between coal beds or coal fields exclud-
ed from the presumption act of 1864 As
"known Mines and other coal beds or coal
fields not coming within that description.
We hold, therefore, that to constitute the
exemption contemplated by the presumption
act under the head of 'tknown mines" there
should be upon the land ascertained coal
deposits Of such all extent and value as to
make the land more valuable to be worked
as q coal mine, under the conditions existing
at the time, than for merely agricultural
purposes. The circumstance that there are
surface indications of the existence of veins
of coal does not constitute q mine. 1t does
not even prove that the land will ever be
under any conditions sufficiently valuable
on account Of its coal deposits to be worked
Is q mine. A change in the conditions &C.
curing subsequently, to the sale, whereby
new discoveries are made, or by means
whereof It may become profitable to work
the vein as mines, cannot affect the title as
it passed At the time of sale. The question
must be determined according to the facts in
existence at the time of the sale. # upon
the premises at that time there uere not &C
tual skno,on mines capable Of being profit.
ably ,oorked for their product so as to make
the land more valuable for mining than for
agriculture, . title acquired to them under
the pre.emption act cannot be successfully
asssiled. In the present case the testimony,
in our opinion, does not justify us in finding
Al the time Jackson acquired his title there
were upon any part of the premises in con-
troversy any known mines Of coal, in the
sense of the statute. For these reasons the
decree Of the court is reversed, and the court
remanded with q direction to dismiss the
bill; and 1t is so ordered"
In this statute the phrase of reservation
used was "knowD Mines" If the Northern
Pacific charter had containd the reservation
only of "known mines, then the decision
might have been construed as applicable to
the Montana mineral lands. But the terms
are "Provided further, that all mineral lands
be, and the same are hereby, excluded from
the operations of this act, n
that the word "mineral," where it occurs in
this act, shall not be held to include iron or
COAL" When the settler applies for title to
land in this region the burden of proof falls
on him that it is not mineral land, and he
has by expensive proceedings, and publica-
lions of the time and place of making proof
thereof, to show the same. The presump-
ton, therefore, Is established by the govern.
ment that these are mineral lands, and as
such are withheld from the agricultural ap-
plicant for patent. Why should not the same
rule hold good as against the railroad com
pany? The railroad company holds that its
lands euured to 1t, subject to certain acts to
be performed, at the passage Of its charter,
that it is not required to make proofs, and
that the certificates of the U. s. Surveyors
show vast areas are due to them that are we'll
known mineral lands. For these they have
made application. By the evidence placed
before the Commissioner Of the General
Land Office by the Mineral Land Association
these certificates are shown to be incorrect
and will doubtless result in patents being
denied until the non-mineral character OF
the land is proven by other testimony. In
addition to this We believe other Congress
sional action necessary-not retroactive In
its nature, not because Of the known
mine" decision, but to define what were
mineral lands as exempted from conveyance
to the Railroad Company ia its charter, .
definition the Courts of the United States
would certainly respect. If it were con-
strued as the Colorado case, that mineral
lands "must be capable Of being probably
worked for their product" aud the railroad
title to all other lands related back to the
date of the Railroad charter, there would
hardly be a mine within the land grant in
Montana, on an odd section, to which the
Northern Pacific could not make showing
of title, for even some of the largest produc-
ing mines in this and other territories and
states were never "pro6tably worked" This
decision, however, was based upon . law Of
entirely different phraseology. What is
required now is q definition of what is 'min-
eral land" as used in the n. P. Land Grant.
We are we'll assured that coming from either
Congress or the Courts it would not be the
same as "known Mines"
THE MILLION DOLLAR FUND.