Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-11-08
v,st Array Of Legal Tai ent Lined
''' I'm in Battle Form Before
Judge Marshall.
oou,7 WANT HEARING IN UTAH.
c,,,osel for the Big carbon'ferous
coruorations Ask for Trans
fer to other States.
,,..v Arc Entitled TO be Heard in
~ ,,,onvealths Where Incor-
,oratlons Were Launched

Tho opening gun IN the pe'lui"e ~
NV III. was fired IN the U. ). dis
iAnu eor,t this morning when arsu-
,sots commenced before judge mar
shall 40 mart NJ counsel
Ivy ,or the special demurrer was
alsu~ ,.,,on Az to the jurisdiction or
w aver the persons of the de-
'n' ~ II was oontended that tho
,,Dr,nrs should be conducted in the
p'''" .nrdsr whose laws the companies
s'''' .,'ornorated. the Utah Fuel COM
''0r being Incorporated in New Jersey
pSD ,,a Noreton TruI company. inc
"Ha ad.nt I'm the alleged Illegal lana
...,h,nr cases in New YORK.
rs' sotIrs mornings session of the
,s taken up by the argument
n Valdron of Denver, VINO
o. ' v.an snedally retained by the btal
las - '.,a,anv 10 head the Aggregation
fuN , talent that has been engaged
81 We rsnAug battle IN the federal
~ m 1ndge Waldron proved an abe
'uul .-,, m the statutes, but 10 the
NE w. layn,an IMMERSED In blackstone
s,us al rs best was Il hard ono 10
.T Under the influence OF gratetul
WA, Seat and comfortable seats some
y ,ha snectators INDUCED In forty
pinks' or more
IMPOSING LEGAL TALENT.
When. The court was called to order
Al 10 o'clock there was an imposing ar
ray Of legal talent lined up which m
gdef Il. s. Dist. Atty Hiram u.
Moth. Elmer u. Thomas. assistant
nunsel TO the interstate commerce.
onmssion, Fred Maynard. who also
tska hand here at the recent investi-
ulnn by Commissioners Prouty, and
rB Critchlow, representing the gov
lament; Atty. John NJ. Waldron, Wal
snar Van Colt and Mark Braffett, the
ran Fuel company. and Maj. X. w
Ycurg and Ashby Snow, the Moreton
trust company. Atty. smith. OF the
VA department of the Oregon Short
Lac vas also present closely watching
a. rase
After several Of the attorneys named
lA been admitted to practise at the
@sal court bar, II was agreed that
a he demurrers entered should be
sred together.
EALDRON ASKED DISMISSAL.
higc Waldron then opened with his
Fmment for the dismissal He COM
ntneed by giving synopsis of the bill,
siich Is a lengthy document. by
pay Of introduction he stated that he
proposed to attack the bill from the
POINT o. equity. He then proceeded
70 urge that the State OF Utah had n
light to select either coal or agricul-
luTal lands under the enabling act. IL
he vas right IN his contention, he said,
his statement went to the root Of all
lhc bills that had been filed attack
ng the state land selections. In round
figures the lands selected and which
were now IN contention involved some
liN acres out of 2.i49 acres.
INTO A NEW FIELD.
Then Judge Waldron went on to
tMrm that with this case all connected
were entering upon a virgin field and
70 cate there had been no judicial de-
'eon that declared that coal lands
ee exempt from the state selection
vas the province of the Utah enab-
1Ng act SO far as IT, covers the grants
ldnds that was IN controversy, He
ga sections TO 10, inclusive. of the
ah enabling act of April Is, 1894, and
fpseeded 10 demonstrate by argument
~ me bll's showing that the lands
controversy were unreserved, no
lghs INTERVIEWED and they were public
nffnTa n "a
1aaas Of the people who ultimately sold
y he Utah Fuel company and It's allied
Companies.
Vnder this act, contended counsel. the
~ was specifically authorized 10
'seet the lands in question whether
w were coal lands or not, for IL was
rsa, wy immaterial as far as coal
ss ooncened The state was within
ngnls, providing the lands selected
,a hot been set apart by the gov
'"shs ior some designated purpose.
a UTAH DISTINCTION.
~ This act OF Congress Utah was
~ special grantee and Utah was
.S stare IN the Union where al
s, Sne lands had been granted. He
crlalhed that II was the purpose o
sSS So, to make this liberal grant O.
lands. Congress meant thai
ma Mhds should pass to the state ant
n, nate mad the right to select ever,
,s,v esuer the direction OF the score,
mi ~ inc Interior whether they Dor,
the W., not Counsel maintained tha
prs. uue OF the lands In dispute cam,
WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED.
Va Suhsel strongly affirmed that 4
kls,vt the province of the court [,
I'M pvlate the law and nterject int,
~, statutes s.sui anything that was no
,area, inc only theory that can be ad
npno SAID counsel. lis that OF 4
hat government policy which wa,
,oud W. coal or other mineral lands
M pass TO the state"
,nah,,.ne held was not set forth In IN,
phos aet when read carefully as ,
N NJ, re Then went on to affirm thai
Aabarnnlsan, Mississippi. Missouri
ands " Kansas aud Minnesota Goa
lands @n be entefed as agriculture
,rrve ~ Congress intended 10 re
lpeclscesl lands II would have said :,
% sa, Guy and the court has no rishi
,crteS susl what Congress meant" as
On nouhsel with emphasis.
ands e meaning of the words publ,
on s. ana public domain Judge Wald
o ,ba serted We're identical accordln,
he III, uilng Of the supreme court OF
connl states and other authorities
,owt ~ called the attention Of the
been 81, we Tact that Congress- had
tsrdass ai,ung land to the stata re.
ipprohr,e9 quantity, as part OF the un.
itaIted az nWa domain. The court Il
v conpra. interpretation of the act
awhat con nIn can not presume az
y accom-, ssess might have Intended
uuedp policy Then the Icpislat,, 1880 Ivy
hslyysed 10 know what Il i n,anh', Wa
,fsta, no room Is left Tor lai"rs, 'I w., -
on' It is immaterial what 't'' N.