Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-12-23

I metal aluminium u having neen
shown by different analyses, by
chemists and assayers, 10 contain from
20 70 IS Per cont. aluminium, being
equivalent to from 8 TO IS or 20 poi
cent. Of the metal aluminium. II 1.
also tostihed that active worn
was commenced by tho mineral
claimants on November I, 1850
and has continued ever siucc
and that the mineral claimants bav,
improved the same by putting on II q
lumber house, stable, well thirty feel
deep and timbered, two clay mills, M
iron.force pump, road, 1900 brick
tools, etc. Tue testimony on the par
Of tho mineral claimants does moi
show, however, that much has been
produced for msrket or general use IL
the way OF pottery from the claim, uol
that any attempt has been made to ex.
tract aluminium, for marketable oil
commercial purposes, nor that any oI
the clay has been sold at % cents pei
cubic yard OF Mt any other price.
In opposition TO the mineral claim
ants showing, the Territory put upon
the stand number of witnesses, In.
Guiding James aud Benson Eardley,
professional pottcfs, who like the
Blakes learned the business In Darby.
shire, Englsnd, aud who apparently
possessed the same advantages for
acquiring knowledge Of 1t, aud
whose Information on the sub.
Ject must be considered equally trust.
worthy. Their testimony IL TO the
effect tuat there IL no special value Ia
the clays IN the tract In controversy;
that the ware made from II IL inferior
In quality aud practically unmarked.
able, and thnt In several places In
the Vicinity much better clay may bo
found. Several Of the witnesses teeti.
fy that they have farmed PORTIONS Of
the land, 10 wit David y. Anderson,
~ acres In the n. W. 1; Lorenzo 3.
Clark 20 acres In the II. W. 4; James
Brigge In the n. W. 1; Robert Tnomp-
son, 10 acres In the n. o. 4, and Ange-
10 Bertignoll, II acres Ia the u. q. I;
| Heuty StAndish land In the southea, 1
one-guartcf, J. T.. Eiwaris is acres In
the northeast onc.quarter, Charles
Gongson with other parties, 100 acres
Ia the southeast one-qusrter, and
james Watson Ave acres In the
southeast one quarter; aud that
they have been successful In
raising lucern thereon sufficient
10 pay each well. the crops
averaging from TO p tons pcr acre,
selling from 81 TO 81 per ton, the small
er crop Of tons 10 the acre being pro.
duced without artificial irrigation, the
other with II. These persons, Of course,
hold the lands by no other title than
that Of occupancy, expecting, however,
preference rights OF purchase when
the Territory shall have become State
and the reservation a grant. Bertignoll
/ also testitles that on the land he has
| cultivated In the northeast quarter
| he has a garden In which he grows
cherries, apples, psArs, plums, apricots,
straw berrie. aud grapes, from which
he realized upwards VI 81 500 during
the preceding year. There Ia no doubt
| In my mind whatever ON the question
| OF the comparative value Of the
land, from the testimony adduced.
| AZ mineral Isnd--even assuming
lAud valuable for potter clays could be
/ considered mineral-it has merely n
theoretical or prospective value, neces.
satily dependent upon two things;
| first, that IL contains a superior deposit,
/ and this has not been proven; and sec
onj, that II could aud would be used In
such quantities to Justify extraction OF
| II sufiicienttO make IL valuable 10 work
exclusively for pottery purposes. II IL
| hardly within the bounds OF reason 10
claim that every cubic yard OF clay In
this $50 acres has an nscertAined, prac.
| tlcsl aud present value OF % cents, aud
| eau be disposed Of Mt such n price, ss a
paying business; aud yet II Is on just
such reasoning that the mineral claim.
ants hold that the land In worth s2Oi6
per acre. II has been held, moreover
| u l.. d., p. 76i, Dsmluplaur), that a
| deposit Of brick clay viii not warrant
the classi rcation OF land as mineral, OF
entry thereof rs q placer claim. The
pOtter's clay In this tract, ! am con n.
dent, does not differ very essentially
from brick clay, and therefore I am
inclined to sustain the letter OF my
predecessor 10 your office OF March 2,
1891, In which he expressed his opinion
thst lands containing deposit OF ordi,
uary pottor's clay Ii not subject to ems
try under tho mineral land law.
The value OF the clay for the metal
aluminium ought not TO be considered
Mt all. This metal exists In all forms Of
clay and It's percentage IN ordinary
clsys, found everywhere, " nearly II
not quite equal to what u shown by
the analysis made OF the specimens
submitted from this tract. (5et
Richards Aluminum.) Because OF it,
abundance generally In all lands con.
tanning clay or OF a clayey nature,
such lands cannot he held 10 be suhleci
10 disposal under the United States
mining laws. Ii would work confu.
sion II NO held, for SIT II estimated tina,
In Its various compounds aluminium
forms about oDe-twclith OF the crust OF
the EARTH" (Csnt,1y DictioHdry.)
The true key to the controversy, IL II
reasonable 10 Infer, In the proximity OF
the laud TO the city OF Salt Lake, and
Its consequent value for building and
town purposes. This section 10, as
well as other sections Ia the nelghbor-
hood, appear ~ have been surveyed
aud undivided Into building lots, and
the testimony OF several real estate
agents goes TO show that, with legal
title, the lands In the section would be
worth from 5000 to $1,000 per acre.
decide, therefore, from all the evil.
dence, that the land In controversy "
non.mincral In character, and subject
to the general reservation Ia the organic
act OF Utah, for the benefit OF schools,
thus approving your decision and your
action In rejecting the mineral applica-
ton.
Give due notice hereof to all parties
In Interest and make prompt return.
Very respectfully,