The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-04-07
MINES ON TOWN LOTS
An Important Decision by the
Supreme Court.
BIG TREE coLoNlsTs EvacrED.
Entries % National Reservatioa Void
-All the silver Coins 70 Have
New Designs.

WAsHIserox Crrr, April 6.-The United
States supreme court today reversed the
judgment Of the supreme court of Mon
tana in the case of Andrew J. Davis, appel
liant, ". Henry Wiebold, and ordered the
case remanded for q new trial. This was
asuit for damages, and involved the title
to certain lands in the town of Butte,
Mont. The case turns upon the construc-
ton TO be given to the provisions of the
townsite law of the United States. Davis
held q title under the townsite
entry act, of which one provision is that
no title should be acquired, under the act,
TO any gold, silver or copper mine, or to
any valid mining claim held under the ex-
isting laws. Wiebold claimed title under
the general laws, and when Davis offered
TO prove that at the time the
patent Of the Butte townsite was is
sued the premises in dispute were not
known to be valued for minerals of any
kind. objection was taken on the ground
that Wiebold's patent showed as matter
Of fact the premises did contain valuable
mineral lands and as such could not be
granted by townsite patent. The court
sustained the objection, and this ruling,
which was really decisive Of the contro-
versy, this court overruies.
The question involved in the suit has
been long in dispute, and there have been
various and in some instances diverse
opinions on it in the executive depart
ment.
The United States court has several
times passed upon it by inference and i'm
plication, but this, it is said, is the first di-
rect dicision. The court. in an opinion
written by Justice Field. says:
The important question il whether, in the alb
serce Of knowledge that there were any valua-
be mineral lands within the TOWNSHIP, Davis
can be deprived Of the premises purchased and
occupied by him because of the Subsequent dis
coyery Of mineral in them, and the issue OF
patent to the discoyerer. After much con-
sideraticn We have come TO the conclusion that
this question must be answered In the negative.
The object of tho townsite act was to afford
relief 70 inhabitants Of cities and towns upon
public lands. by giving valid title thereto, and
under such protection many towns with build
ings of great value have grown up II would in
many instances be great impediment to the
progress of such towns ii the titles to land occu
pied by their inhabitants were subject to be
overthrow BY the subsequent discovery OF min
eral deposits under their surface. II their title
would not protect them against the discovery
OF mines in them, neither would it protect
them against invasion Of their property for the
purpose Of exploring for mines. Temptations
into such exploration would be according to the
suspected extent Of the minerals, and being thus
subject to indiscriminate invasion the land
would be, to one having title, poor and value
lefs, just In proportion to the supposed richness
and abundance of its products. We do not
think that any such results were contemplated
By the act. or that any construction should be
given to IL as would lead to such results.
1t is true the language OF the state touching
the acquisition Of title to mineral lands within
the limits OF townsises 10 very broad, but in
strictness they import only that the provisions
of the townsite law shall not be the means of
passing title also to valuable mining lands. We
think they mnst be held merely to prohibit the
passage Of title Of lands then known to exist,
and not to prohibit the acquisition for all time
OF mines which then lay buried unknown in the
depths OF the earth.