The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-11-09
ARGUMENTS I'M
COAL LAND CASES
Continued from PAGE I

states. As an illustration he brought out
the point that the public grant of land
known as school lands was in most states
but two sections to every township. Utah
received four sections to every township.
In addition to this land, areas were grant
co for other purposes. Judge WaldrOn as
serted that Utah had the right to state
cepted, in the state That coal lands
were included in this enormous tract
granted, Judge Waldron argued there
should be no doubt
The act is plain and easily UNDER
Stood" he repeated. Congress showed
plainly just what the act meant in de-
fining. the lands which were to be in
cluded end excepted. Mineral lands were
set aside School lands and other lands
Tor specific purposes were set aside. No
mention was made OF coal lands. Then
all lands not set aside passed to the
state"
He compared the Utah enabling act with
those of other states in which coal lands
are appropriated or set aside by the gov
eminent. This was DONE he argued. to
show conc!usively that if congress had
meant coal lands in Utah to be excepted
III the act for this state mention would
have been made of them with school and
mineral lands. Judge Waldron asserted
that Congress did not include coal land
in mineral land and no court has any
power to place special interpretations
upon an enabling act.
provisions in enabling acts" he said.
Coal lands can be entered as agricultural
lands in Michigan. Kansas, Minnesota
and Alabama. Additional legislation must
be made when there is doubt on certain
points in enabling acts. Congress must
effect this. Courts throughout the United
States cannot decide what was meant by
congress when some ueStiOn arises on GER
tain points
Concluding his argumen. on this point,
Judge Waldron said:
There is no need for lengthy argument
on this point. Utah's enabling act is per-
fectly plain. Certain lands are set aside
for some specific use and mineral lands
are excepted. All others so TO the state"
Defines Coal Lands.
mentioned. land he asserted again that
they were not the point would be imma-
terial, as there was nothing TO show that
the lands had been taken up fraudu-
lently.
The government admits that unless
land is known coal land-land where coal
has been found and is known to be con-
tained-there is no cause for any action
like that started he averred. He con-
tnued at length TO show that the land
involved was not known coal land
mo land should be known as coal lands
unless mines have been developed he
said. There was nothing to show these
l2ndS to be coal lands. Mines, shafts,
workings by which coal bodies have been
opened. can alone show that certain land
contains coal. Geological and surface in
dicatiOns count for nothing under law.
The government is bound to accept the
decision that coal lands are not mineral
lands. Besides, the law provides that no.
tees must be published I'm newspapers
and land offices that certain lands open
for entry are non-mineral lands. There
was no dispute objection, protest or as
sertions made against the states selection
of the lands now under dispute. Action
can not be taken because development
since has proved these lands coal areas"
Judge Waldron again contended that
the case as stated by the government did
not entitle it to maintain suits.
There is no case" he asserted. 1--WE
feel certain of this and would feel so if
we never had a witness"
Attacks Jurisdiction.
Resuming mis- talk on the question Of
the United States court here having iur-
isdiction over the defendants, Judge
Waldron discussed at length the status
of the two nonresident communicating
Utah Fuel and Morton Trust companies
He explained that the Morton Trust
company had its own counsel but had
been made a co-defendant.
holders OF the Utah Fuel company in
holding 81 coo. 600 worth of > per cent
bonds running for at least thirty years
yet. He said an act OF congress applied
to the circuit courts OF the United States
made il impossible and Illegal to try a
defendant outside OF the district of which
he is resident
He admitted that there are cases where
this might not hold. referring TO suits for
proceedings in rem where the status
of the title of certain property is the mat
ter to be settled
"A suit TO quiet the status OF title
or against some specific property can be
excepted under this act. he concluded.
Had these suits been started to quiet
the status of a title the courts here
might have had jurisdiction over
the defendants. In each of the bills filed
however. a judgment is asked against the
An accounting is wanted and
Judgment desired for the value of all coal
mined i'm the lands involved An injune-
ton to suspend working while the cases
are pending and being tried is asked.
These are personal matters and throw the
hearings out of the jurisdiction of the
courts here The states under which the
companies derived their organization are
their resident districts. The suits must be
tried there if there IS any case. and I
fail to see one after studying the bills OF
the government
Counsel for the government will reply
today.