Santa Fe daily New Mexican., 1895-12-14
COCHITI MINE TITLES.
Text of Judge Golfers Decision in
Washington Injunction Case-Re-
lief Sought Of Congress.

In the matter of the Henry Lockhart vs.
j. Q. Wills ct al, case wherein motion
was made by defendants for the dissolu-
tion of the injunction forbiddirg the
working of the Washington mine in the
Cochiti district, the New MEXICAN some
time ago noted that Judge Collier had
dissolved the injunction.
Being advised, however, that, in grant
ing the motion, the court touched upon
the question of titles generally in the
Cochitl mining district, the New MEXICAN
has taken the pains to procure the full
text of Judge Golfers decision in the
premises, which is appended:
JUDGE ooLL1ER's DECISION.
In the view take of the case it is not
only unnecessary, but believe it would
not be proper, considering that the in
junction asked is merely auxiliary to the
action at law, to pass upon the many
questions raised and discussed by coun-
sci upon the. motion to dissolve the in
junction.
1t is clear, think, that the complain
ant would be entitled to the injunction
until the action at law is decided, if re-
covery in that action will give him any
right or title to the ore body under the
surface of the land he is suing for. Is
not, however, the converse of the propo-
sition also truef That is, if he has no in.
terest in the mineral in the land the tax
ing OF the same away is matter that in
law in no way concerns him, and as to
which he has no standing in court of
equity? 1t is true that upon the same
theory, the retaining of the Injunction
would not, in contemp plation of the law,
injure the defendant, for it seems to be
admitted on both sides that neither liti-
CANT has any interest in the mineral
acquired by possession; but before
court can act there must be something of
substance in controversy, and, as the only
thing OF substance here is property in
which neither litigant has any present
legal right, there is simply an impro-
vident order granted, which should be set
aside.
The complainant's solicitor, feeling the
force of this proposition, cites the cases
of Noonan VS.. Caledonia M. Co., 121 u. s.
4O3, and applicable to the one at bar.
There was land, as I understand the
cases, about to become part of the public
domain, and rights we're in a sense
allowed to be initiated, which could be
followed up by compliance with the land
laws, but here all trespassers were told
that the land was not subject to the min
Ing laws, but WAS reserved from them as
fully as if it was private property, until
it is restored to the public domain, if
ever. If the decree of the court of
private land claims should be affirmed,
and there only awaited formal depart
mental restoration of the land to the pub
lie domain, case more resembling that
OF Noonan vs.. Caledonia M. 90. supra
would be here, and parties in possession
and waiting such proclamation might re-
quire more preference standing.
In answer to the argument that a rul-
ing in defendants favor would tend to
reign of force and fraud instead of law
and order, think it might be answered
that tine law does not undertake to pro-
tect the prior possession of a trespasse
against another ousting him, but here the
court is asked to preserve, not what he
is in possession of, the surface, but a dis
tinct and separate estate lying there
under, the property of the United States.
l fail to see how complainant presents
any matter of substance in which he ia
interested for it's consideration and de-
termination, and the injunction having
been improvidently granted is dissolved.
ALL TREATED AS TREspAssERs,
1t will be perceived that Judge Collier
virtually treats as trespassers all who are
engaged in the development of mines
within the boundaries of the Cochiti grant
as originally filed for confirmation in the
court of private land claims. Technical
~ this is unquestionably the law, and it
will continue so until the supreme court
of the United States finally passes upon
the pending appeal and the lands in
question are formally thrown open to en-
try as part of the public domain. But
nevertheless it remains true that the
court of private land claims, especially
created by congress to pass upon such
matters and clothed with original juris-
diction in the premises, has definitely de-
cided that the legitimate boundaries of
the Cochiti grant do not extend far
enough west to include Allerton or Bland
or any part of the Cochiti mining district,
and thus the miners of the district have
the most substantial reasons for holding
fast to their hard earned possessory
rights, assured beyond peradventure
that these rights will finally receive the
amplest recognition by the government.
1t may be assumed as certain that no
bona tide possessor of mining claim in
the Cochiti district will ever be disturb
ed.
CONGRESS- SHOULD GRANT RELIEF.
Surveyor General Easley has recently
the attention of the general
land Office authorities to the views ex-
pressed by Judge Collier in the Washing
ton injunction case with an earnest
recon mendation that congress be solici-
ted to grant relief to the prospeotors and |
miners Of the district on the lines of the |
bill introduced in the last congress by
Delegate Joseph. In the light of the
clear and conclusive decree of the court
of private land claims, congress should !
not hesitate to grant the relief asked.