St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-04-07
Settlement Of a Question
Which Has Long Been in
Dispute.
Town Site Patents on Mineral
Lands Valid in Certain
Cases.
They Are All Right When
Minerals Were Not Known
to Be There.
A Long Suit Involving Title
to a Large Part Of Butte,
Mont.


court to-day reversed the Judgment of
the supreme court of Montana in the
case of Andrew j. Davis, appellant, VS..
Henry Wiebbold, and ordered that the
case be remanded for new trial. This
was a suit for damages, and involved
title to certain lands in the town of
Butte, Mont. The case turns up in the
construction to be given to the town
site law of the United States. Davis
held title under the town site entry act.
of which one provision was that no
title should be acquired, under the act,
to any gold, silver or copper mine, or to
any valid mining claim held under
existing laws. Wiebbold claimed title
under the general mining laws,
and when Davis offered to prove
that at the time the patent of the Butte
town site was issued the premises in
dispute were not known to be valuable
for minerals of any kind, objection was
taken on the ground that Wiebbold's
patent showed that as a matter of fact
the premises did contain valuable min
eral lands, and as such could not be
granted by town site patent. The court
sustained the objection, and this ruling,
which was really decisive of the cOntro-
versy, this codrt overrules. The ques-
ton involved in this suit has been
Long in Dispute.
and there have been various, and, in
some instances. diverse opinions on it in
the executive departments. The United
States supreme court has several times
passed upon it by Inference and impllca-
ton, but this, it is said, is the first direct
| decision. The court, in its opinion,
written by Justice Field. says: 1.-The
important question is whether in the alb
sence of knowledge that there were any
valuable mineral lands within the town
site, Davis can be deprived of the prem
iSes purchased and occupied by him be-
cause of the subsequent dscov-
cry of minerals in them and
the issue of patent to the dis
coverer. After much consideration
we have come to the conclusion that
this question must be answered in the
negative. 1t is true the language of the
statutes touching the acquisition of title
to mineral lands within the limits of a
town site is very broad, and the declara-
ton reserving valuable mineral lands
from entry under the town site law
would seem, Oh first impression, to con-
Slllule Il IcS6INdtlOu VI SuCIl IllllcS Ill
| the land sold to the United States; but
| such is not the necessary meaning of
| the terms used. In strictnesS they i'm
port only that the provisions of the
! town site law shall not be the means of
| passing title also to
Valuable Mining Lands.
| We think they must be held merely to
| prohibit the passage of title to mining
| 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. The object
of the town site act was to afford relief
| to the inhabitants of cities and towns
upon pnblic lands by giving valid title
thereto. Under such protection many
| towns. with buildings of great value,
have grown up. 1t would in many
instances be a great impeachment
if the titles to the lots occu-
pied by their inhabitants were subject
to be overthrown by a subsequent dis
| cOvery of mineral deposits under their
| surface. If their title would not protect
| them against a discovery of mines in
them, neither would it protect them
against the invasion of their property
for the purpose of exploring for mines.
The temptation to such exploration
would be according to the suspected
extent of the minerals, and, being thus
subject to indiscriminate invasion, the
land would be to the one having the
title poor and valueless, just in proper
ton to the supposed richness and
abundance of its products. We do not
think any such results were contem-
plated by the act, or that any construc-
ton should be given to it as would lead
| to such results.