The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-10-15
MINERAL LANDS.
w. H. Mills Answers the Miners As
ISOLATION.
A Clear Presentation OF all the Mat
ters in Controversy Between
tho Miners and Railroad.

William ii. Mills, Lana Agent Vi tHo
Central Pacific Company. has made re-
ply to the objections raised by the Min
eral Lands Committee of the Miners
Association to the form of agreement sub
mitted by him September 18th. Mr..
Mills, in a letter addressed to A. ID.
Ricketts,, Chairman of the committee,
says:
Dear Sir: Replying to your esteemed
communication of October eth, in which
you offer criticism of the basis OF COM
promise submitted by me under date OF
Septem Der 18th. Your first criticism Is as
follows:
Your proposal nowhere specifically
provides for the submission OF any LANDS
whatever to the inspection OF the pro-
posed commission, whereas, IL Is the
Judgment of this committee that all I'M
patented lands within the limits OF the
grants in question should Dc suplult'eo
TO such inspection"
If you will do me the honor now 10
refer to my proposition OF the 1ttn uiI.,
you will find in the first subdivision as
follows:
THAT each party will, within ten days
from the date hereof, appoint reputable
and competent person, whose outy IL
shall be to inspect such patented lanos
claimed by the party of the first party IN
California as the parties hereto may SUD-
nit them, and to testify as witnesses,
ETC."
From the context you will see that the
parties referred TO here are the central
Pacific Railroad Company, by It's land
agent, and the Committee for the frotec-
ton of Mineral Lands. | supposed IL
would be plainly understood that each OF
these parties would have the right 10 sup
NIT to the commission any unpatenteu
land claimed by the party OF the hrst part
IN ColifOrnia and that l8 the obvious
and only meaning of the statement AS
the Mineral Lands Committee was one OF
the parties 10 the agreement, 1t OF course
would have right to submit lands Ior
inspection. AS the only obvious ana plaIn
meaning of this statement has been mis-
understood. l suggest as an amendment
to place il beyond all possible amDlgul
the insertion of the words "or either OF
them." 1t would then read: The partles
hereto, or either of them, may submit TO
them.o
The objection, therefore, as set forth in
your first criticism, is not well taken. IL
was originally provided that the parties
to the agreement might submit land. and
as your committee was one OF the parties
your committee would possess the right
under the former agreement 10 make sucn
submission. About this, however, there
need be no further contention. Inc
amendment proposed will make 1t COM
prehensible to any capacity.
In your second criticism you say:
"You propose That the chief function of
the commission shall be to furnish tasLl-
mony in use in divers land office proceed
ings, whereas 1t is the judgment OF this
committee that the decision of such COM
mission should be conclusive aStO which
OF said lands are mineral, and therefore
to be Immediately relinquished by your
company to the Government
l had supposed that this entire proceed
# foo tot linz
judicial conclusion as 10 the facts III con-
troyersy Conclusions reached outside
OF the tribunal established by the Score
tary of the Interior for the determination
OF these questions would nOt.be binding,
nor could any advantage flow trom them
to either party. In the first instance,
these lands are mortgaged or conveyed by
trust deed OF the date of October l, 1870,
to trustees for the benefit of certain bond
holders. These bondhOlders are scattered
throughout the world, and cannot be
made parties to any private or personal
conclusion which the Land Agent OF the
Central Pacific Railroad Company and
the representatives of the State Miners
Association may make; but they would
be bound by judicial conclusions based
upon expert testimony. Twas therefore
decidedly in the interest of fairness that
we should prOpOse that the conclusions
reached should crystalline into Judicial de-
termination.
Further, in this second criticism, you
quote my language TO the effect that the
chief value Of this plan resides in the fact
that hat We settle by it shall remain I'M
disturbed. Your proposition would In
effect reach verbal, indefinite conclu-
sion. There would be no tribunal TO
which the commission could report. The
agreements would simply result in con-
fusion. Verbal agreements OF this kind
might be disturbed. and especially by
parties IN interest who cannot be made
parties TO our stipulation. But they
would remain undlsturbed If they be-
came legal conclusions. our quotation
from my first proposition grew out Of
these very considerations. Your propo-
sition would make the conclusions OF the
commission unilateral. Such conclu-
sion could not be made the basis of patent
for such land as the commission might
decide to be non-minersl. 1t would re-
suit simply In the rellnQ hment by the
railroad company of such lands might
be decided by the commission to be min
eral, but would possess no valne as the
basis OF the company's claim for patent
for that which had been as fairly and as
fully ascertained to be nOn-mineral.
y our suggestion, If acted upon, would
make the conclusions OF the commission
effective by the immediate relinqulsh-
ment OF lands found to be mineral; but
would deprive the company OF ali bene-
with respect of the non-mineral charac-
ter of land. AS the company pays more
than half the expense of the com mission,
1t should derive some substantial bene-
fits from It's conclusions.
But beyond all this, the grant TO the Call
ifornia and Oregon railroad Company.
the unpatented lands of which embrace
by far the largest and most important
area, IS a grant Of quantity. Lands lost
by reason OF their mineral character in
the granted limits constitute the basis of
claim for indem nifty to be selected in the
indemnity limits. The company has
nothing to lose by the loss OF mineral
land in that grant. and it will, therefore,
be perfectly apparent to you that it is
more than willing TO relinquish mineral
lands in the primary limits because it
loses nothing OF quantity by so doing
But the Government is not disposed to
accept voluntary ACCOMPLISHMENTS of this
kind, because it is obvious that such re-
linquishments might be made of land
non-mineral in character, but of inferior
value, for the purpose OF selecting lands
of greater value in the indemnity limits.
So far as the grant to the California
and Oregon Railroad Company is con-
cerned, the company itself may be largely
the gamer by the loss oil mineral in the
granted limits; but the judicial deter
mination of the land officers OF the Gov
eminent that land within the granted
limits TO that corporation are mineral
would make basis of loss for indemnity
selections. This cannot be created by
reluquishment, but may be had by
of witnesses qualified by the examine
ton OF the land in the field.
Your third criticism Is as follows:
You propose no definition of what thu