Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-11-09

| of the government, however, at the close of the
hearing moved to strike out this testimony,
| taking the ground. which surprised many, that
an examination Of the record showed that
these mines belonged already to the United
| States. The motion came before the court to-
i day for argument. Chief Justice Bingham and
Justices Cox and James were on the bench.
When the court opened District Attorney Cole
and Assistant Attorney Taggart and Mr.. Perry
! OF the managing commission were present to
represent the government and MessIs. Jere NJ.
| Wilson, James Coleman and T. A. Lambert to
represent the property owners Interested The
| counsel tables were filled with shiny silk hats
and rows of formidable looking legal volumes,
signs that a royal legal battle was imminent.
! The case had been given precedence over others
| On the calendar because the court recognized
tie importance of clearing away the obstacles
| that at present prevent the appralsing commits
sion from completing its work.
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS.
| The hearing was upon the motion made by
the representatives Of the United States to
strike from the record before the Rock Creek
Park arpraising commission ali testimony
taken on behalf of the defendants Truesdell
and Shoemaksr-in regard to the existence Of
gold mines upon their lands. The
grounds for the motion set forth in
| The STAR at the time it was made are summed
| up in the brief prepared by the solicitors for
| the United States, District Attorney Cole, Mr..
| r. Ross Perry Of the managing commission
and Assistant District Attorney Taggart The
claim made is that the motion should be granted
for the reason that the title to such mines, if
any exist, is in the United States, the title of
the United States being traced from the King
| of England as lord paramount.
1t is held that any allowance to the owners
for an increased value for their lands by rea-
| son of such mines would simply be making the
United States pay for what is already its own.
| OF course this view and these assertions are
disputed by the counsel for Messrs. Truesdell
and Shoemaker. The solicitors for the United
States in their brief trace the title from the
grant of the lands embraced in Maryland made
by Charles 1 to Lord Baltimore in
o Of two Indian arrows and Rs"'n a
, fifth part Of all gold and silver which shall
| Shoemaker and Truesdell lands, it is claimed,
fall within tracts granted by patents of the
proprietaries of the province of Maryland. one
| to James White, dated March IL, 1772, one to
John Powell, May IT, 1874, and one to Thomas
Fletchall and Charles Beall, December 10,
HIS. These patents, from which it is claimed
the rights of Messrs. Shoemaker and Truesdell
| are derived, show an exception and reservation
| in each case to the proprietary of royal
mines"
This reserved interest in the mines it is
claimed, was vested in Henry Hartford as pro-
prietary of the province, at the revolution and
became vested in the state by the confsca-
| ton acts passed by its legislature in 1880,
| tQe TlRut6 OF tI0 King DeCOmluR VeSteU
in the state by the events Of the revolu-
ton. The property rights Of the state in
| the soil, including the mines, 1t is asserted,
passedto the United States when the state coded
| to the government of the United States the
territory included within the limits Of the Dis
trict by the act Of Maryland Of December 10,
1871.
Mr.. HUGH TAaGART's ADDRESS.
When the case was called Mr.. Taggart rose,
put on his glasses, took copy Of the govern
ment brief in his hand and began to address
| the court. The testimony in relation to gold
on these lands, he understood it, was taken to
adduce two things-first, the actual existence
| of these mines and second that there was
prospect of gold there, both of which things. it
was claimed. the appraising commission should
| consider in determining the value Of the
lands. He referred to the motion to strike out
this testimony by the government and re-
marked that all that could be said in behalf of
the motion had been set out succinctly in the
governments brief which he read. The pro-
| vision made in the grant by Charles I he
claimed specifically included all veins, mines
and quarries, for otherwise, he said,
| by the practice of the time the
mines would have been considered
as excepted. Mr.. Taggart read from certified
| copies obtained from Annapolis the three
patents referred to in the brief under which it
| il claimed Messrs. Truesdell and Shoemaker
| derived right and title showing that the patents
specifically excluded royal mines" Regard
| ing the question as to what was meant by
| ''royal Mines" Mr.. Taggart said Blackstone
classes the kings right to mines
as branch of the royal revenue
and says that it has its origin in the
king prerogative Of coinage, and in order to
| supply him with material, and that therefore
| those mines which are properly royal and to
which the king is entitled when found are only
| those of silver and gold"
| Discussing the other steps by which the title
was traced Mr.. Taggart said that the Maryland
confscation acts referred to had come before
| the United States Supreme Court early in this
| century and had been held to be sufficient for
| the accomplishment of its purpose. Mr.. Tag
CART read also the Maryland confscation acts
passed in 1850, one of which especially named
| as confscated the lands of the lord proprietary,
at that time Henry Hurford.
He read the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case Of Smith against the state OF Mary
land, reported in Cranch, to show that the
confscation acts had completely Invested the
British subject of all right and title He MAIN
tanned that it was clear, by tracing the title
through the various acts, patents and grants,
| that these mines did not belong to the indi-
vidual owners. 1t was not important here to
consider to whom they did belong.
| Mr.. Taggart used up what was left Of the
morning session after the court had finished
announcing opinions and when he finished at
1880 the court took o recess for half an hour.
MR. LAMBERT PRESENTS HIS VIEWS.
]
went on the bench again, Mr.. Lambert came
forward to do battle on the side Of tho land
owners and to break down, il he could, the
barrier erected by the government out Of royal
grants, prerogatives and proprietary patents.
Mr.. Lambert had prepared a brief which set
forth the legal points he contended for, and
cited many opinions to sustain them. Among
the points urged in the brief were the fol-
lowing:
The kings right to mines Of gold and silver
is classed among the jura regalid and could be
made by him the subject Of grant The jura
regalia as attached to the person Of the king in
England never did attach to the lords proprie-
tary. By the revolution all the LANDS which
then belonged to the lord proprietary
became absolutely vested in the state and were
% held for the public benefit, not, however, al
under the government Of the province. as the
estate for the private emolument of an indi-
vidual, but for the use Of the public.
The policy Of the general government AZ ex-
pounded by decisions Of its most exalted tri-
bunal IL opposed to the contention now made
offciously in Its behalf The rule seems nov
to be finally settled that to the owner Of the
soil, whether tho government or q private in.
dividual, the mineral belongs a. part OF the
land and not to the government ~ an incident
The government Of this republic has been
clothed with no such sovereign power or SOW
ereignty a. that Of England, either altogether
| or In anv Of ita departmeuta