Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-04-07
Reyerses the Judgment IL the Case OF
Andrew Davis w. wiebold.
Butte, Montana.
THE CANADIAN rMissAHiEs READY
TO RETURN.
A Reverend Gentleman Indicted for
Libellny Prominent Preachers
Of His Own Faith.
ny TELEGRAPH to tho Ssw.i
SENTENCE REVERSED.
Decision Of the q. y. supreme Cburt
In n Montana Case.

W noutnuh sn>fs
WASHINGTON, April 0.--Thc United
States supreme Court today reversed
the Judgment u the supreme court OF
Montana In tho case Of Andrew J.
Davis, appellant, w. Henry Wiebold,
and ordered the ease renianded Tor
new trial. This was n suit for dam
ages, and involved the title 10 certain
lands In the town Of Butte, Mont.
The case turns upou the construction
10 he given 10 the townsitc law OF the
United States. Davis held title urdcr
tho townsilc entry act, 81 which onc
provision wis that no title should he me-
qulfed under the actt TO any gold, silver
or copper mine, nor 10 any valid min.
Ing claim held under thecxiHtlng laws.
Wieboh claimed title under the gen.
etal mining laws, and whcn
Davis offered 10 prove that ut
the time tho patent 10 the Butte
tOwnslic was issged the premises In
dispute were not known 10 be valued
fot minerals 81 any kind, objection was
tnk,n on the ground that Wiehold's
patent showed that, a. u matter " fact,
tue premises not contain valuable
mineial lands, aud a. such could not lie
granted by townsitc patent. The
court sustained the objection, and this
ruling, which was really decisive OF
the controversy, this court overrulos. .
The question Involved In the sui1
has been long Ia dispute, and there are
various, and In some instances diverse,
decisions on Il IN the executive depart
m,nts. The United S.at,e supreme
Court Inns several times passed upon
II by iuietene and implication, but
this, II II said, Ia the first direct doci'
sion.
The court, In Its opinion, written by
Justice Field, says. "rbe important
question Is, whether In the absence Of
knowledge that there were any valu.
able mineral lands within the
towDsite, Davis can be deprived Of the
premises purchased aud occupied by
him because OF the subsequent dis
covery OF minerals In them, and the
issue OF n patent u the dIscovercr.
After much consideration, we have
come 10 the conclusion that this ques.
ton must h. answered Ia the negative.
IL IL true, the language of The statutes
" thc acquisition Of title 10 mineral
lands within the limits Of townrite- IN
very broad, but In sirictae~ they pro-
vlds only that the provisions Of the
townsite law shall not h~ the means Of
passing title also 10 valuable mining
lands. w. think they must les held
merely b. prohibit the I'sssage OF title
10 mining lands then known to exist,
nnd not 10 prohibit acquisition for NIL
time Of mines which t,en lay hurled
unknown In the depths II the earth.
"rhe object ~ the roSnsite net was
~ afford relief 10 Inhabitants OF cities
and towns upon public lands by giving
valid title thereto. Under such pro-
lection many towns, with build-
ing- ~ great value, have grown up.
II would In many instances he n
great impedlment To the progress Of
such towns II the titles 10 laud occupied
by their inhabitants were subject 10 be
ovefthfown by the subsequent discov-
cry Of mineral deposits under their
surface. II their titles would not pro.
tect them against tn. discovery Of
mines In them, neither would II pro-
tect them against the Invasion Of their
property Tor the purpose Of exploring
for mincs. the temptation 10 enter
Into such exploration woubi bc accord.
Ing TO tho suspected extent ~ minerals,
and being thus subjec TO indiscriminate
Invasion, the land would be 10 one
having tho title poor and valuoless,
ust In proportion To the supposed rich.
ncs- and abundance Of It's products.
We do not think any such results were
contemplated by tue net, or that any
construction should be given 10 II that
would lead to such results"