The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-04-13
ALL ABOUT The CASE
The Time-WOrn Litigation Over the
Parrot Shelter Ground.
ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS
Suit of George r. Marsh and Henry
Cannon of Helena Wherein judi
son Harmon. Attorney Gen.
eral, Is Plaintiff.
ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS


F. Marsh of Butte and Henry Cannon
of Helena by Judson Harmon, attorney
general of the United States, to set
aside and cancel a placer patent OBJ
tanned to the ground covered by the
Parrot smelter and the old athletic
grounds southeast of the city, an on
swer has just been filed in the United
States court in behalf of the defend
ants. 1t is said that the real oefend-
ant is the First National bank, which
has obtained the property through a
series OF transfers. Enoch Johns, who
purchased the ground from the North
ern Pacific as agricultural llnd. is as
much interested in the case as the gcv-
eminent which alleges that the patent
was obtained through the .srossest Kind
of fraud AMI irregularities.
The answer filed in the government
bill of particulars enters a general de-
collusion. A lot of evidence in the
form of reports. letters and kilograms
have been collected by the govern
ments attorneys and counsel for Johns
which tend to implicate men in high
standing in the alleged fraudulent
transaction and the charge is made by
the government that Commissioner
Stone of the general land office was
apparently in collision" with the de-
PENDANTS.
1t Is claimed that Enoch Johns was
at one time offered $4,000 to compro-
mise the contest. The facts charged
by the government is that on July is,
1881, Marsh and Cannon made appli-
cation for placer patent on the
ground in question, and in 1882 Enoch
Johns entered into a contract with the
Northern Pacific to purchase the
ground which was portion of the rail-
road grant, and secured a deed on
Nov. 8, 1886. In April, 1887, Johns filed
In the general land office a protest
against the mineral entry by Marsh
and Cannon, claiming that the land
was agricultural The protest was
heard on June 49, 1887, before the re-
ceiver of the Helena land office and on
May 3, 1888, the receiver dismissed the
protest. Johns took an appeal and in
November, 1889, the Helena Office was
reversed by the general land Office and
in January, 1890. the general land office
reviewed the case and reversed itself so
far as the non-mineral character of the
land was concerned, the evidence on
the point not being satisfactory, and
the land office also being dissatisfied
with the proofs offered by Marsh and
Cannon as to the amount of improve
ments claimed to have been made by
them. Johns next took an appeal to
the secretary of the interior who con-
frmed the rulings of the commissioners.
1t was alleged that when Marsh and
Cannon filed their application for a
patent they claimed they had per-
formed S575 worth of labor on the prop
erty Johns In the meanwhile had
built house and made other improve
ments on the land and lived there with
his family. In 1885, without having
offered additional proofs of a compli-
ance with the law, Marsh and Cannon
lad Until fIeaw
port to the effect that $1,575 worth of
improvements had been put on the
claim by them, upon which the re-
ceiver issued final receipts. The gov
eminent alleges that the surveyors re-
port was fraudulent and that Marsh
and Cannon had made no improve
ments whatever or to the value of any
sum. Two of three witnesses who were
alleged to have corroborated Marsh
and Cannon's application by affidavits,
testified that they had
never made any such affidavits and
that the alleged improvements had
been made by a former agricultural
claimant named Ornstein for agricul-
tural purposes and had no connection
whatever with the mineral entry. The
two witnesses entirely repudiated the
affidavits they were alleged to have
made, and the other witness is dead.
The deputy mineral surveyors re-
port of work done pretended that there
was discovery shaft valued at SIPS, a
shaft No. 2, worth $50, a placer excava-
ton worth $1,000 and a blacksmith shop
put up at a cost of $500. The sur
veyor afterwards admitted that the al
legged shafts were old prospect holes
long since caved in, and the placer ex-
cavation was made for the foundation
OF the Parrot smelter and had no con-
nection whatever with the mineral en-
try The prospect holes were made i'm
1873 by Charles w. Ragsdall who could
find no mineral and abandoned the
ground. The blacksmith shop was
built and paid for by the Parrot COM
pany for its own use entirely. Marsh
and Cannon, Ii is alleged. knew all
these facts and knew that their claims
as set out in their affidavits were false.
While all this was going on the secre-
tary of the interior decided that addi-
tional proofs were necessary to show
that the mineral claimants had COM
piled with the law SO on January 4,
1898, they filed IL more affidavits with
the commissioner. showing additional
improvements consisting of the Parrot
pond, which was designated as a reser-
voir and dam, 900 by 1900 feet in size.
and IL was also claimed that they had |
IN interest in a company which, II was |
alleged, was then building a ditch from
DlNlut CREEK, 10 InlleS away, 10 the
ground in question for the purpose of |
placer mining. The new batch of affi- |
iavits purported to have been made in |
March and April. 1890. The govern |
nent charges that the alleged dam and /
were built by the Parrot COM |
Dany in 1885 for its own use in connec-
ion with its smelter and had no con- |
lection whatever with the mineral en- |
ry. The ditch mentioned was never |
within seven miles of the ground and |
rot in Silver Bow county and was |
never intended TO be brought in.
After this lot OF afiidavits had been /
lied Johns obtained permission to file /
counter affidavits and he produced Is /
ienying the truthfulness of the proofs /
submitted by Marsh and Cannon. /
Johns protest was again dismissed by /
Stone and on Feb. 13, /
S93. he in person delivered the patent, |
which had been prepared in advance, /
o the attorneys for Marsh and Can
ION The nafpnf had bean urv-iffap nm