The Helena independent., 1894-05-27
The Supreme Court Says They nC
Not Belong to the Railroad
Company,
Decision Was Reosived With a
Good Deal OF Satisfaction by
Every One.
HlsteVy ot the Most Important Casa That
the stats Has Kvsr seat to the
supreme Court.


and ell the mining states uaVersed by the
Northern Pacific railroad. haa been looking
for for two years. came yesterday in the
form OF q telegram from Congressman
Hartman ne follows
Harden case decided sQslnst the North.
srn Pacific"
TnE IsDErgsDESr posted the good nswa
upon lie bulletin board. and In n little
while tho glad tidinRs we're all over town.
The owners Of mining claims vers of course
the most directly interested. aud thoy were
The most outsrokeR in their eatisfaetion
that the outcome vas what II vas. Some
Of the most valuable mining properties iu
the state. including the Granite Mountain
mine. are Affected by the decision. In
some cases the decision will affect tho
question OF tho title TO what IA now town
site property, but which was taken up ss
mining property several years ago. This 10
the case with the Cannon additions. both
on the east and west sides OF town. and the
decision OF the Supreme court will un-
doub,sdly result IN the title to these prop
critics being vested In the party who took
them mp az mining claims, or his succeed
sors. as tho railroad claimed the ownership
under their grant.
The title OF the case iust decided by ths
supreme court vas the Northern Pso 40
raiirosd vs.. Richard II. Bsrdsn ct
al. The case involved q question
Of the greatest importance TO tho
states and territories embracing min
srsl isnds. May 20, 1855. tho defend
ants In the action discovered AMI located
several veins OF mineral bearing ore 10 the
vicinity Of the Brosdwatsr hotel and nata-
torium. In Lewis and Uls'ks county, and
commenced mining operations upon the
Same. Sept. o. 1880. The plaintiff com
menced it's action Of eieotmsnt against de-
PENDANTS. alleging that Its grant. general
and definite location OF its road. and the
complstion thereof. wofe eli prior In tins
10 the discover snl location OF said min
ing claims by the defendants.
The ease was tiled before the Hon. Lo7
fsnzo sawyer. United States oircuit judge,
and the Hon. Hiram Knowles. United
States distflot Judge, for the district OF
Monthna, and BY divided eout. Jadgs
sawyer being In favor o: tbs plaintiff and
Judge Knowles In favor Of defendants.
Judgment was rendered for the railroad
company and against the mineral claim
ants. Under the law organizing the court
Of appeals. there was q saving clause as 10
cases then pending which enabled the osss
10 90 by writ OF error directly TO the
supreme cout Of the United States for
review.
Hon. Martin Msginnis. then being min
eral land commissioners for the state of
AAa AA in Ia q
this important question forever settled BY
ths highest Judicial tribunsl OF the United
States. ON mployed Toole a Wallace on be-
half OF the state. 20 prepare q record and
carry the case 10 the supreme court
Of the United States for review.
u on arrangement made with Hon. W. Il.
Cullen. as attorney for the railroad, and
the attorneys for the state. the pleading.
we're so amended as 20 lresent fairly the
question whether q discovery of vsluable
mines mado sftei the grant. location Of ths
general and definite route OF plaintiff.
railroad, and the oompletion OF the same.
plaintiff under its grant.
The cisim upon the one hand was that oil
lands upon odd sections within forty miles
upon each aide Of the limo Of tho railroad
not known to be valuable for minerals, al
the time OF the definite location
Of the line OF the road on
tho 9Th day OF July. 1882. we're granted
10 the railroad. Upon the other hand "a
vas claimed that all valuable mineral lands
were excluded fIom tho grants whether
known ~ said date 10 be suoh or not. and
that ell discoveries and locations made
prior 70 the granting OF . patent 10
the railroad were valid under the
mineral land laws Of the United States
Elaborate briefs were prepared by Toole A
wallace and forwarded 10 Attorney Con
eral Miller. Who. With bis suooessor. con
side'sd the questions involved OF such vita
interest TO the mining states and terrific
rios. NJ 10 require the assistance Of the gov
eminent attorneys In their behalf.
The case vss argued and Submitted owe
month ago. and yes,sfday the highest tri
bunal Of the land handed down an Opinion
sustaining the position Of Judge Knovis
and reversing tine decision OF Judge sawyer
Hence one Of tbe most importaut question
affecting the mining interests of this stat
and other states and territories that coul
possibly arise. has been forever sci a. ies
In . suit prosecuted al the Instance OF Mon
tAna. 10 vhoss enterprise and public spiTi
all credit 10 duo in sequirinR results so ben
sncisl 90 all. The decision Ia In favor O
the mines aud NoatAna 10 entitled TO th
prestige Of achieving 10.