The Lewiston teller. (Lewiston, Idaho) 1900-1905, 1905-02-14
WOULD amend
HEPBURN BILL
,v to be Passed Taking From
Land Office Suits for Ad-
verse Possession

-,and the Hepburn bill. providing
nh.t all suits brought pursuant to sec
49,. ,wentv-three hundred and twen-
.r.six of the revised statutes in sup
~, of an adverse claim filed in any
r,.;,ed states land Office against an
onn,ication for patent for a mining
.,o;m shall be deemed actions at law
:. ho tried as other action at law are
,red in the courts having jurisdiction
:, rho subject matter of the suit" says
- agreement has been practically
-ooched whereby this bill will be
.u,onded SO as to make equity cases of
.hose cases in which plaintiff is in pos
session Of property involved in the
contest.
Mr. Folsom who represents the Bum
rsd Hill and other mining companies
~ the Coeur d'Alenes, is also much
encouraged at the favorable turn of
affairs and now confidently expects the
massage of the bill with the amend
ment for which he has been working
the last few weeks.
The report of the house committee
m mines and mining on the measure
should be interesting to western min
ing interests in view of the proposed
change in matters Of this kind before
the courts.
The report follows in full:
The object Of this bill is to harmon
ize the practice in the courts having
jurisdiction to determine suits brought
pursuant to the provisions Of section
1926 of the revised statutes OF the
United States in support OF an adverse
claim filed in the United States land
ONCE against an application for patent
for a mining claim. In some jurisdic-
tions these actions have been held to
be on the equity side Of the court with
out regard to the form Of pleading or
the relation Of the parties to the ques-
ton Of procession. In other turisdic-
tons it has been held that where the
plaintiff was in possession he must re-
sort to suit Of equity to quiet title,
which is on the equity side Of the court
and where he is out Of possession that
nc uuuSt ICSOIS ~ aI aStAOh a. Ap ~ +ASs
the latter case he would be entitled to
jury trial; in the suits of equity he
would not. ..:.
Under the equity rule governing the
United States courts the testimony in
equity Is not taken before the courts.
Witnesses are examined before an ex-
aminer or master in chancery out of
the presence of the court and the case
goes to the court in the shape of rec
ord. The questions upon which the
validity OF mining locations is estab-
lished, generally depends upon the tes-
timony of the miners and prospectors
who were present at the time of loca-
ton or who have knowledge Of the
markings of the claim upon the ground
and very aften depend upon conditions
that are only to be determined by ar
inspection of the premises by the jury
In the mining states the court fire.
quently sits from 100 to 500 miles from
the place where the property is sitp-
ated and has no opportunity of meeting
the witnesses face to face to judge
OF their manner in giving their testi'
mony of their character from their con.
duct upon the witness stand. All mer
look alike on paper, and the shifty and
Vacilating witness whose manner
would at once condemn him in tn,
mind Of the court is often made to ap
pear from the record of the testimon!
IN quite as favorable light as the wit
ness who is candid and straightfor
ward in his manner, and whose de
meanor commends him to the court a
man whose testimony is worthy o
weight and credibility.
The greatest injustice has fire
quently resulted from the present sys
'em OF taking testimony before a ref
cree or other officer of the court uifde
'ne rule that requires all testimony
whether Objectionable or not, to b
aken into the record subject TO- tn
purging of the record of the court
uhder the oft repeated but unwise an
untrue statement that the court wi
disregard the matters contained in h
record which are not strictly With
'he rule OF evidence. Men fiatter them
serves that they can disregard sue
matters, when as a matter of fact tn
Iudges are oftentimes the victims {
tue same rule as that applied to othe
people. 1t is impossible to disabus
eie mind of matters that may be i'm
properly in the record so as to leave n
Impression in the mind of the court.
without pursuing this question full
a'er II must be obvious that the ru
bad one. and not the proper ru
.os the trial Of these controversial
which depend upon local conditions ar
.ne existence OF facts that are be
nown and most familiar to the me
nV'ns In the vicinity OF the property
Controversy.
me courts should not be at liber
n0fd at their win that man shou