Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-12-23
AN IMPORTANT RULING
By Commissioner Carter In Regard 10
Clay Land Entries.
WHAT PorrER'S CLAY is NOT
An Exhaustive Opinion Full Of Interest.
Ing PolHis: General Review
Of the Ease.


Commissioner Garter, Of tho Land
Department NJ Washington, has sent
TO the Register OF the Land Ofice In
this city his opinion ON the land con.
test dispute ia fogard 10 the entries on
section 10, township | south, range
/ east, claiming the tracts filed on 10 DO
mineral lands because Of clay deposits
thereon. rhe decision IL adverse ~
the claimanla, and Is ~ follows:
DErARr,iESr oF-THE INTERIOR, GES.
EEAL LANp OFFICE,
WAsHiNoroN, ID. c., Dec. IL, 1881.
Contest No. $50, United Statc1 and
/ Utah Territory VI. John G.. Kennedy,
mineral applicant, involving appilca.
tlon for patent for the Cecelln, Agnes
aud Helen placer claims, comprising
the n and Sci OF section 10, town
ship south, range | east, salt Lake
meridian.
Register ard Receiver, Salt Lake City,
Utah:
Gontlrmen.-O May 9, 1890, J ohn
I g. Kennedy offered 10 die a mi neral
| application for patent for the above
named placer claims, claiming the rame
10 be valuable for thelr deposits OF brick
and pottof'f clay.
On June T., $500, your office reject.
cd tho application for the reason chat
the land h not mineral IN character,
and not subject 10 entry under the
placer mining law.
from this action the mineral claim.
ant appealed 10 this office.
Upon consideration OF said appeal,
this Office, 10y letterof October ~ is0j,
directed that you CAUSE a hearing 10 be
held 30 determine whether each legal
subdivision Of the ten acres Of the
claimed land contains such valuable
deposits Of mineral ~ to bring II with.
In the class Of lands subject 10 mineral
entry" directing at the same time that
nll parties, including the Territorial
authorities 1.-THE land being on school
sectiou), be notified thereof.
The hearing was set for April S, 1891,
aud continued for several days, the
mineral claimant being represented by
iossrs. Bird n Lowe, the Territory by
j. 4. Foreman, Superintendent Of
Schools. assisted by Messrs. Parks 4
Thompson.
Before the testimony was taken, the
counsel for the Territorial authorities
moved TO dismiss tho case on the
ground and for the reason that there
was no reservation orexception OF min.
eral lands Ia the section OF the organic
act which r-tervod sections ID and 80
for school purposes In Utah Territory.
nor has there, In any OF the States Of
the United States with respect 10 the
reservation oihuch sections to the Ter
ritory Of Utah, been any exceptions or
reservations " any mineral lands or
minerals which might be contained
therein. In fact, that this reservation
amounts 10 u grant, and vests title la
the Territory, AMI that such being the
case an application TO patent any por
ton fsaid sections "a mineral lands
should be dismissed.
You oyerrulel this motion; where
upon exception WAS noted. In their
argument opposing the appeal OF
the mineral claimant, the counsel for
the Territory request u decision
by this Office as 10 the correctness OF
your said ruling, refusing TO dismisi
the case, II being alleged In the argu.
ment that II appears Of record that
other placer locations were made by
other persons than tho mineral claim.
ant In this ease, concerning the same
land In dispute, and that II l. a we'll
known fuct that nearly every school
I
In other parts OF the Territory, are
covered with so.Callcd placer locations,
made by land spectators Ia tho hUpe
OF acquiring tltle to valuable lands to
which there Is no other way, at pres.
ent, Of acquiring title.
While IL II not necessary for the pur.
pose OF reaching n decision In this ease
topaasupon the question thuspresented
| will, nevertheless, quote the following
from the decision Of this office In the
case OF coal entry No. 5s Of Henry Wood
(Copp's IL. o. Vol. Y, y. 225), which is
still adhered TO, viz; "S!nce then II
appeara settled that IL was never
the Intention Of Congress to grant to
a State or Territory any mineral lands
for school purposes, II follows a porttorf,
that II cannot he presumed TO hive
been its intention TO reserve any por.
ton OF them 10 be- applied In future TO
such PURPOSES" In the same decision
Quoting from the decision In case Oi
Consolidated Mining Company, l02 u.
-, l6I, Ia relation To public lands 10 the
State n California by the act OF March
s, 1865, for school purposeH) II was said
that II "wRs not intended to cover
mineral lands, but such lands were
excluded from the grant, ~ they were
from all actions, by the settled policy
OF the government. See also l.. b.
> p. II, Thomas Echltson, receiver.
Your ruling denying the motion to
dismiss the care Is therefore approved.
The testimony taken at the hearing
Ia very exhaustive aud touches on, on
the part OF the mineral claimant, every
ten.ncre subdivision OF the entir, tract
Of $50 acres. II Is In evidence that a
shaft or excavation, or several OF them,
have been sunk on each OF said sub.
divisions, and that substance
claimed to be- pottery clay, and valuable
~ such, was disclosed in each. IL
is ondeavored TO be shown that this
material or substance subjects the land
> to mineral application tor patent and
entry, and to sustain this view tho
mineral claimant produces Benjamin
and William Blake aud Isslah FAUX.
nor professional p0tters, who, ~ wit.
nes-os, submit specimens Of ware made
! by Them from this clay, amt who state
. that the clay body IN the bank Is worth
70 cents PER loaf, or cubic yard. II is
claimti, accordingly, that at this
q valuation tho clay bei having nm
average width vi 1--we feet, tho laud Ia