The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-04-07
The Montana Supreme Court rs Not
Sustained by the Federal
Tribunal.
Exposition Of the Law In the Fam
GUS Butte City Townsite
Case.
Patsnt Centenary to lse Celebrated at the
Uapital--Sequia Reservation Not
Open to Entry.

WARRINGTON, April U--Ihe United States
supreme court to-day reversed the judg-
lnent OF the supreme court of Montana in
the case Of Andrew j. Davis, appellant, vs..
Henry Wiebold. and ordered the case re-
manded for new trial. This was suit
for damages. and involved the t,tle 70 cer-
tain lands in the town of Butte, Montana.
The case Turns upon the construction to be
given TO the provisions OF the townsite law
of the United States. Davis held title I'M
der townsite eatry, in which act there is
one provision that no title should be ac-
quired under the act to any gold. silver or
copy er mine, OF to any valid mining claim
held Under existing laws Wiebold claimed
title under the general mining laws, and
when Davis offered to prove that at the
time the patent of Butte townsite was is
sued the premises in dispute were not
known to be valued for minerals
OF any kind, objection was
taken on the ground that
Wiebold's patent showed that as a matter
of fact the premises did contain valuable
mineral lands, and as such could not be
granted by townsite patent. The state
court sustained the objection, and this rul-
ing, which was really decisive of the con-
troversy, the federal court overrules.
The question involved in the suit has
long been in dispute, and there have been
various, and in some instances, diverse
opinions on it in executive departments.
The United States supreme court has sew
eral times passed upon it by inference and
implication, but this, it is said is the first
direct decision. The court, in its opinion,
written BY Judge Field, says: The i'm
portant question is whether, i'll 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 sub
sequent discovery of minerals in
them, and the issue Of patent to the dis
coverer. After much consideration we have
come to the conclusion that this question
must be answered in tie negative. Il is
true the language Of statutes touching the
acquisition of title to mineral lands within
the limits of townsites is very broad, but in
strictness they import only that the pro-
vision Of the townsite law shall not be the
means of passing title alsoito valuable min
ing leaxss. We think they must be held
merely " to prohibil The passage of title to
mining lands then known to exist and not
to prohibit acquisition for all time of
mines which then lay buried unknown in
the depths of the earth"
The object of the townsite 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 buildings of great value.
have grown up 1t would in many in
stances be great impediment to the pro-
gress of such towns if titles to those lands
occupied by their inhabitants were su oject
to be overthrown by the subsequent discov-
cry of mineral deposits. under their sur
face. If their title would not protect them
against the discovery of mines in them,
neither would it protect them against the
invasion of their property, for the purpose
of exploring for mines. The temptations
into such exploration would be according
to the suspected extent Of minerals, and
being thus subject to indiscriminate inva-
sion, land would be to the one having title
poor and valueless just in proportion to the
supposed richness and abundance of its
products. We do not think any such re-
suits were contemplated by the act, or that
any construction should be given to 1t as
would lead to such results"