The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-07-26
s Utah, 5ps.
UhNns u I.nrac,iins IL I-tah 1ah

rs Utah, aas.
Hayes rs. Lnvaguins. II Utah; les
Transit company VS.. Lynch, 1S Utah, SfS.
kimhall IS. Grautsrille City, 10 Utah, 500,
Gold Mining company VS. Gold and Copper
oOMPnny 20 Utah, aes c.
20 Utah, d7d.
Richardson VS. Mining company. 90 Utah,
Salt Lake City VS. Salt Lake City W. and
q; P company, Is utah, 4S6: N.m
moth %nns mnnE 20 'G%PSny nS 4so
opinions recognize the existing condi-
tions, of the arid region, apply equit;;
able principles and enforce PRACTICAL
and eeonomical uses of water ms ms
always been liberal in favor OF the
prospcctor and locator, taking the
view, as he expressed it in his opinion
in Gold Head Mining company vs. Bo-
nanza Con. Mining company, 90 Utah,
l59s that the main object of the law is
fruits resulting from honest toll and
innumerable hardships, but TO aid him
in acquiring valuable rights in mining
property, and to develop the mineral
resources of the country
Decisions on Mining Matters.
Some of his decisions on mining law
have called forth much favorable COM
meut not only from the legal profes-
sion. but from the mining press. Com
menting cditorIally upon the decision
in Grand Central Mining company vs.
Mammoth Mining company. 90 Utah,
1870, a recent case in. which Judge
Bartch wrote the opinion. the Mining
and Scientific Press of San Francisco,
one of the ablest mining and scientific.
journals of this country, IN its issue or
March II, 1906, says:
We have nothing comparable to it since
Justice Field who is regarded rs tho pio.
necr in mining law, wrote the decision in
the famous Fureka Richmond case.
Extracts from the editorial read as fol.
lows. t'In deciding tho case of the Grand
Central against the Mammoth Mining com
pnny, the Supreme court OF Utah has given
us valuable treatise on the law OF mines'
Not since Justice Field wrote ;ho decision
anything comparable TO il, especially in cloar'
of statement, in fullncss and breadth
Of treatment nnd in the vigorous way eGch
sively decided. 1t ie a decision that will be
Welcomed by the mining community generally:
and that any enc with n fair knowledge oil
mines can read and understand, so plain and
simple is tho language Tho Grand Central
won every point by mastery defense
clevorly conceived and ably sustained Best
Of all. no ono. unless blinded by interest,
can read this decision and not feel that tho
rightful owner OF tho ore won. The
Supreme court of Utnh does not lay bare the
work 20 ascertain the facts, 20 interpret the
law and to determine the rights OF the phrtes
hereunder: in short, the court takes the law
as IL exists and, in settling the property
rights of the Etgants, leaves us with bot
ter and broader understanding OF the mean
ing Of The net OF 1872 This decision is pre-
cmncntly constructive; we have had dccis-
ions which complicated, without intending TO
do So the Interpretation of the act; this ono
smplifes II. II is certain 10 be quoted at
great length in the judication of muny IS
sues arising under the mining law pnrtlcu.
larly questions relating 10 discovery and
apex and to the right 10 follow vein
ON tho dip; questions involving the deter
mination OF what constitutes vein or
lode and what its boundaries. SO faT
roachiHc may II prove. in application TO legal
conflicts constantly arising, that many an ct
toruey wrestling with knotty problems OF
his kind. in tho wdeyl scattered mining
camps OF the Wcst. may truly say 30 the
Grand Central, in the words OF Rosalind to
Orlando Sir you have wrestlod weli, and
overthrown more than your enemies.
Content With Record.
That such decisions 90 far TO ele-
vate the legal standing Of and 10 in
spire confidence of the business men
of the country in our State. can not
he denied. The friends of Judge
Bartch may Justly feel content with
his record on the bench and may well
dcplore his determination to retire,