Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-11-08

department may have compelled its
officials In this territory TO do, and II
does not interest this court as TO what
the interior department. may have
meant. II IL for the courts to decide
what Congress- may have meant, ana
place their own Interpretation on the
same. The speaker did not favor that
construction Of the law which favored
Utah at the expense of its sister com.
monwealths in the granting Of coal
lands. and Congress did not intend
granting lands 10 states as assumed
which may be the better comprehond-
ed by study of the decisions II the
California Supreme court. and the
consideration OF the enabling act of
the state of Utah was necessary rs a
prelude to consideration OF other
phases OF the question
AS TO STATES RIGHTS.
The interior department has no busI-
ness coming into court and informing
the judiciary what construction shall
be placed on the congressional act Mr.
Waldron claimed the state had right
to select lands, az II had done, and the
claim that the lands might have been
known as coal lands is a mixed question
OF law and fact. What the surveyors
may have reported has no weight In a
court OF justice. The lands were said TO
be grazing and agricultural. and how
was 1t known by the authorities that
they were not, and that they were coal
lands? They may have believed the
lands contain valuable coal; but belief
does not constitute knowledge In point
of law. There were no shafts, no drifts,
no machinery or works OF any charac-
ter which by their existence and opera
ton would go to show the lands 10
have valuable strata OF coal. The as
sumption of the existence Of coal was
gratuitous.
AS TO COAL" LANDS,
The applicants for the lands involved
made their filings and application In
regular order, and In case where the
land had been returned as coal lands
was there any attempt at concealment.
Where the surveyor returned Coal" It
was noted on the face OF the applica-
tion. The state authorities filed attida-
Wits as to what had been done TO de-
termine the character Of the lands IN
question, and the rules of the depart
ment of the interior were In all re-
spects compiled with. all the statutory
requirements were fulfilled. The speak
er then took up the ex cathedra. The
department may make a-ruling one war
and then on the very next day reverse
such ruling.
The bin OF the plaintiff IN THIS case
Is materially deficient, under the rul-
ings of the appellate United states
court OF this district. According to a
decision of the United States supreme
court. the action Of the land office OF
the interior department In accepting the
records covering the transfers of lands
In this case and In issuing patents, was
final and Is not 70 be appealed from IN
any collateral or direct suits. In TACT
the case is not open to review In any
court. Mr.. Waldron portrayed the ac'
ton OF the department of justice In
bringing these suits as practically ar
ralgning government officers as corrupt
and dealing in an undetermined way In
collision with state officials.
Counsel continued his argument until
the lunch hour of 1880 .. M, and re-
sumed this afternoon on reconvening Of
court. He Is occupying the remainder
of the day, expecting to conclude at this
evenings adjournment of court aud
then the case of the government VIII be
presented tomorrow morning. Mr.. Wal
dron Is an earnest, pointed speaker ana
seems to have his side of the case well
In hand.