The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-04-07
TOWNSHIP ENTRIES.
The Supreme Court of the United
States ReverseS
Inc Judgment Of the Supreme Court OF Mon
Jana In Davis vs.. Wlebold-The Patent
May Carry a Mining Title.

WASHINGTON, April 6--The United States
supreme court to-day reversed the Judgment OF
the supreme court OF Montana in the case Of
Andrew j. Davis, appellant VS.. Henry Wiebold,
ana ordered the case remanded for new trial
Ihls was suit for damages and involved the
title to certain lands in the town Of Butte Mont
tana. The case turns upon the construction to
be given to the provisions OF the townsite law
of the United States. Davis held title under
the TOWNSHIP entry act, of which one pro- isiou
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.
Wlebold claimed title under the general mining
laws, and when Davis offered to prove that az
the time the patent of Butte townsite was is
sued the premises in dispute were not known
10 be valuable Tor mineral Of any kind, objec-
uon was taken on the ground that WiebOld's
patent showed that as a matter OF facJ the
premises did contain valuable mineral lands
and as such could not be granted by townsite
patent. The court sustained the objection, and
this ruling, which was really decisive Of the
controversy, this court overruIes
The question involved in the snit has been
long In dispute and the rulings have been yari-
Gas, and in some instances diverse on it in the
executive departments. The United States SUI
preme court has several times passed upon t.
by inference and implication but this it is saiq
Is me hrst direct decision. The court, in its
opinion, written by Justice Field, says The
important question is whether, in the absence
Of knowledge that there were any valuable
mineral lands within the townsite, Davis can
be deprived Of premises purchased and occupied
by him because of the subsequent discovery Of
minerals In them. and the Issue OF patent to
the discOverer. After much consideration We
have come to the conclusion that this question
must be answered in the negative. 10 is true
the language OF the statutes in regard to the
acquisition Of title to mineral lands within the
limits of tOwns1tes is vrry broad but in strict
ness il imports only that the provision OF the
townstte law shall not be the means OF passing
title also to valuable mining laws. We think
they must be held merely to prohibit the pas
sage Of title to mining lands then known to
exist and not to prohibit the acquisition for all
time of mines which then Law buried
unknown in the depths OF the earth
The object Of the TOWNSHIP act was to AFFORD
relief to the inhabitants Of cities and towns
upon public lands by giving valid title thereto.
Under such protection many towns. with build
ings Of great value have grown up. 1t would
in many cases be great impediment TO the
progress of such towns If the titles to those
occupied by their inhabitants were subject TO
be OverthrOwn by the subsequent discovery OF
mineral deposits under their surface. II their
title would not protect them against the diseov-
cry of mines in them, neither would it protect
the purpose of exploring for mines Tempta.-
ton into such exploration would be according
TO the suspected extent of minerals, and being
thus subject TO indiscriminate invasion. the
land would be to one having title, poor and
valueless, just in proportion to the supposed
richness and abundance Of its products. We do
not think any such results were contemplated
by the act or that any construction should be
given to it as would lead to such results