Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-11-09
Government Has an Innings To-
day With Two Counsel Present.
ing Merits Of Prosecution.
MAYNARD AND CRITCHLoW.
Both Have the Cases Very Well in
Hand and Put up SpIen-
did Reasoning.
Counsel Held That People Who Took
Up Coal Lands Mere Really En-
pIoycs of Defendants,

Argument in the coal land cases
waA resumed this morning, before
Judge Marshall in the United states
district court, and is being continued
through the day Special United states
Atty Maynard OF Grand Rapids, Mich,
spoke FOR che government until llilO'
o'clock when r. b. Critchlow took the
floor, and is occupying the attention
Of the court for the remainder OF the
day Judge Waldron Of Denver for
tho defense. will conclude tomorrow
morning, The prosecution dwelt on
the merits of the case, through Mr..
Maynard, while Mr.. CrtchlOw dWelt
ON the fact that governmental rent
edy VAS not to be In any way prcJG-
diced by official errors, misconstruc-
tons Of law and evidence or COLLISION
and fraud
Mr.. Maynard is not the orator that
Judge Waldron is, but he had his side
OF the case very well in hand, and
made his points clear His argument
showed careful thought and prepare
ton, as well as long experience In
this specially In pleading In fact he
had occasion TO state to the court that
he had given his time for the last six
years and half to this class of work,
and therefore knew what he was talk
ing about. The attendance of spocta-
tors were light, most Of them being
members Of the bar, and included
Judge iiiles, senator Rawllns, Judge
Dusenberry Of Provo, and others.
MAYNARDS ARGUMENT.
4 III
ment by stating that il was not nee
essary for him to enter into the same
detail of argument as 1t would be were
the case to be submitted at this time
In final. The questions before the
court were covered by the demurrer
the merits Of the causes and their
equities, as we'll as whether this court
has jurisdiction or not He would not
attempt to argue on all these. but
would confne himself TO the merits.
Five bills had been filed by the gov
eminent, including the one asking for
cancellation of the patents where the
lands We're taken up as coal lands. Ii
was legitimate questloA whether or
moi tile bills had been filed in accord
anee with the decisions OF the supreme
court, and he did not propose 10 IA.
dulge IN the hair splittings OF learned
counsel for the other side. Counsel
held that the people who took up cdal
lands for the coal company were real
ly employees Of the company be-
ing taken up at 81 % per acre that were
really worth thousands Of dollars Coal
and mineral lands do not pass out of
the hands of the government irrespec-
tive of their real character except by
special enactment OF Congress.
KILLINGS ON SJTRJECT
Counsel read rulings of the depart
ment and decisions of the courts TO
show that coal and mineral lands We're
not subject to selection, and the grant
of school lards TO Utah became oper~
alive only on admission of the. terri
tory to the Union, mineral and coal
lands being exempted from the opera
ton of the grant. In 1878 1t was or
dered that all lands valuable for MIN
erals shall be reserved for sale. no eX-
ceptlon being made otherwise than by
special governmental provision. The
titles to mineral lands did not pass 10
any state on its admission to the Union,
the speaker mentioning Kansas, Mis-
souri,, Wisconsin, Michigan and Mime
sofa as instances where their admls-
sion brought out thls fact. Then II
was shown that the grants to Califor-
MIA were not intended TO cover min
eral lands.
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY
Counsel then dwelt on the alleged
conspiracy to give a false meaning TO
the entries cited in the bills, AMI
showed by decisions OF the supreme
court that while the patent titles grant
ed by the government TO the lands In
yolyed i'm the complaint might be per-
fectly valid for general purposes OF
ownership, still such patent by no
means shut off the government from
seeking redress through legal proceed
Ings when II was found that fraud and
deceit were connected with the trans
action.
SENSATIONAL STATEMENT,
Counsel created something OF a SEN
sation by stating that up TO 1903 the
lands had never been really exploited,
and that the department In issuing pa
pers actually depended on the con-
spIrators to furnish information rela-
tive to the alleged character OF the
lands involved. Therefore, there had
been really no actual proof before the
". s. land commissioner as TO the ac-
tual nature OF the soil. In fact. the
ruling of the department was In con-
sequence so erroneous that IN the light
of fact, such ruling could not be seri-
ously considered. and these blunders
of the department were such as To fan
In preventing the fraudulent transfer
OF lands. The department until COM
paratlvely recently had commenced the
error of chasing coal lands with gold
and silver lands, when every geologist
and indeed all laymen In this part OF
the country knew well the difference
between coal and the precious mineral
formations. Coal lands have great out
groupings IN plain sight, and II does not
require any effort TO note this.
Il. B. cRITCHLoW's ARGUMENT.
b. b. CrItchlow followed Mr.. May
nnrd He reviewed and summarized as
predatory 10 his argument, the bills pre-
sented BY the government. and critical
IN referred TO contention by counsel for
the defense that the lands IN question
ronId not be classed as coal lands at
The time OF filing because there had
been no shafts dug or machinery OPP
Grated These lands We're known at the
time as coal lands, whether actual min
ing had begun or not. Then argument
~ 10 what was known BY locators or
what evidence had been submitted 10
The department was not essential Mr..
Critchlow occupied Is minutes IN read
ing a decision IN the Northern Pacific
railroad cases. mainly 10 show that the
urinciple held good both IN the cases OF
railroad grants and IN the grants TO
states and that The refusal OF the gov
ernnlent To allow coal aud mineral lands
A., he Included In The railroad grants.