Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-06-24
The EUREKA TOWNSHIP.
An appeal Has Been Filed in The
Local Land once.
TES DAYS TO ANSWER.


npreal from the recent decision OF the
,aicrrs In the Eureka townsi,e case,
the full particulars In tho hearing OF
which were reported In the columns
ofthe News ut tho time. The decision,
4. may be remembered, was rendered
In favor Of the townslte applicants,
The appeal covers fourteen pages Of
,yt.writ.en matter, aud following IL n
ynopsis Of tho document
The application IL made through
INDY, Footu and his corfoborating
ultnesses. They first swear that n
large norton OF the land applied for by
tbem IL covered by mining locations
and is mineral In character TO the
extent Of over 1872 acres.
Upsn this admission the register and
receiver deny their application. They
then die another application, sworn TO
by the same Judge aud witnesses, that
M, lands are non.mincral In their
character TO the extent OF their whole
,nplicatiOu. This awakens the mineral
claimants, and they protest against the
allowance Of the entry Tor the reason
mat the application hfllJsvits are false,
and that the lands covered by the
mineral location arc mineral In char
neier The townsite applicants then
compromise, or attempt 10 compromise,
Tor The benefit Of few, with the
McChrystAls, AMI again have tho
pfobate fudge and his Witnesses swear
mat a portion OF the land covered by
the North Extension, Zulu Valley and
Ridge and the Last Chance are all
mineral In character nnd attempt TO
exclude them for that reason.
The attention Of the commissioner OF
the general land office being called 10
This compromise he denied the author.
ily OF the register aud receiver TO order
hearing and OF the probate Judge to
make . townsite entry, basing his de-
NAL as to the probate Judge ON the Ed
munds.rucker law. lie then la.
slruc,cd the register aud receiver TO
order q hearing, issue new notices and
have the distTsct Judge make the appll-
cation Tor the tOwnHite. This was at
tempted TO be- carried out through John
W. Blackburn, Judge OF the First
Judicial District Of Utah, who made
the application or attempted TO make II
without any persOnnl knowledge Or In.
formation concerning the iands OF their
character OF the town OF Eureka, or
refning the matters sworn 10 In the
afidayits OF Foole aud others.
We claim that the application Is n
fraud, for the reason that II u an at
tempt TO enter townsite without em-
. braclng the town itself.
We claim that there was no author
fly for making Of this coutrncts
between Noah MoChrystnl, John Me-
Chryetal aud John II. McChrystal for
tho exclusion OF tho mining claims
owned by them ON which the princi.
pal business portion Of the toyn II lo-
Gated. Said contracts are rot made
out In the proper form, and In regard
10 the law thoy are not worth the
PAPER they arc written on, and the
ZANE cannot he enforced, being no
forfeiture clause attached, and II its
terms are complied with the large ma
iorlly Of the inhabitants OF this town Of
Eureka would be dcfraudei out Of
their property.
We claim that tho application is
made for the purpose Of obtaining
title 10 valuable mineral land and for
the purpose of specializing In town lots.
We claim that all Of the mineral
locations within the townslt appllea.
ton arc valid mineral claims.
We claim that all Of the land Gov.
cred by the mineral locations are min.
sfRl IN character aad not subject 10 u
towusite entry.
We claim that the ground excluded
from the to snslte application ON ac-
count OF the mineral character and the
other mineral claims IN the hpplioa.
ton, arc Of tho same mineral chafac-
ter.
We claim that the requirements Of
letter "N" OF the Hon. Commirsioner
were no. complied with, and that thore
IA no authority for the relinquish-
ment Of any part OF the towneile APP
plication.
The only claim made by the tow nsite
applicants " that we are not taking
out aud shipping orc anu unless We
have done THIS the land In uon.mineral
In character. This Is their case and we
claim that their position Ia false and
an exaggerated one. We have proven
beyond doubt that a. u present fact,
all Of the locations are mineral in
character. In each claim vein OF ore
containing the precious metals has
been developed. We have shown that
It 10 necessary TO 20 TO great depths
before pay ore IL struck. We have
shown that the mineral claimants have
expended large amounts In the uevel.
Opmebt of their claims.
We have shown that the surface oil
the paying mines and the formation on
the same are OF the same general
character IA our locations. We have
shown that there are paying mines "a
the north, south, east aud west OF oui
locations, but that the general direction
OF the orr veins Ia northerly and south
erly, which OF necessity would take
them through thu land In question
We have shown the land to be- In .
great mineral belt or zone, and we now
ask your Honor TO decide that the lane
~ mineral In character.
The argument filed oites number o.
decisions 10y the Supreme court OF the
United states and by the Interior do
partment In support OF all the claim
made ty the mineral protestanis,"
Under the rules Of tho Departmen
the townsite applicants have len day
In which 10 answer the appeal.