Arizona republican., 1903-07-17
A CASE OF TREASURE TRovE.
Singular Suit in a London Court In-
 v0lving a Find" of Antiquities.

VOlVing a 'Iind' of Antiquities.
 A unique legal process occupied the attention of the English lord chan ccllor's court on June .. It was a suit of treasure trove brought in behalf of
 the king by the attorney general
 against the British museum to estab-
 fish the title of the crown to q num-
 Der of gold articles of early Celtic
 workmanship discovered in the earth
 seven years ago in the north Of Ire
 land. and which had come into the pos
 session of the museum by purchase
 The articles included set oG gold bowls. a model of a curragh or an- cicnt Irish boat, a collar or gold. three
 torres and some gold chains. The at torney general claimed that the finders had no right to sell them to the British museum or any other party; that no one could acquire any title 10 them by purchase; that they became the property oi the crown from the very moment they were unearthed on the shore Of LOugh Foyle. and he cited the ancient law pertaining to such finds as set forth by Lord Coke in Third h. stitutes, page 132.
 The attorney for the museum con- ! tended that James I. after conhscatins the land Of the natives, granted cer- ! tain persons all rights in it. and claim ! ed that all franchises passing by a royal charter included the crowns pre- | rCgative; that treasure trove was a ] franchise. and hence the owner of the | field in which the ornaments were | found, holding his title to the land | from the grantees of the royal char | ter. was ertiuad to sell and give | valid title to the things found He 1 cited several ancient cases bearing on 1 the matter, and referred to a petition ] of right presented by the Commons | to King Edward IT, in support of his | contention. The proceedings, which oc- | Cupied the time of the court for a | whole day. have an archaic flavor | quite interesting and somewhat novel | to a person Of the Twentieth century. | The archaeological expert witnesses who testified on either sIde substan-
 tially agreed that the articles were of very early Irish fabrication. One of | them, MT. Arthur John Evans. who is at present conducting extensive exca-
 vations in the island of Crete, thought l they were deposited in the first cen | tury of the Christian era, as q thank | offering made by some pagan Irish | chief to marine divinity for having | been saved rom some peril of the sea | But Mir Munro, of Edinburgh univer- | sity, another expert while agreeing | that they were quite ancient, consider | ed the theory that they were deposited | as a votive or thank offering a very ! improbable one
 Eminent geologists were called by
 the museum to support the theory that
 they were deposited as a pagan votive | offering in the sea, and that since the
 time of their deposition the sea bed
 had raised until 1t became the solid
 land in which they were found. Prof.
 Hull, director of the geological survey
 of Ireland, concluded that the things
 at issue were offerings to a sea god dropped into LOugh Foyle, and that
 down to the Fourth century they were probably submerged several feet below the surface. but a gradual upheaval
 of the seabed had taken place, dis cernible to any seologist, which had brought them to light. Other learned men denied that the ancient Irish made VotiVe offerings to their sea gods There was no trustworthy evidence O. it; such customs were confined chiefly
 to Scandinavia. The investigation was
 an interesting study in Irish archae-
 olCgy and the ancient law Of treasure
 trove, but Cn the subject at issue it
 was very confusing. Mir. Justice Far
 well, who presided, said he would have
 to consider carefully the testimony and
 render q decision at an early day.
 Boston Evening Transcript.