The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-04-25
RAILROAD IS LOSER
To MINING COMPANY
Section of Land in Controversy
Held TO Be Mineral in
Character.
TRACT IS SITUATED
IN MORGAN COUNTY
Important Decision Is Rendered
by Col. NJ. Nj. kaigIn,
Register.

Cal NJ. NJ. Kaighn, register Of the
Unihd States land Office. rendered an
important decision relative to tho case
OF the United States, the Morgan Ar
geniine Mining company, and others,
against the Union Pacific Railroad
company, on Saturday afternoon, IN
which the railroad company is the
loser.
The suit was brought for the purpose
of compelling the railroad company to
give up certain land it had selected and
which was claimed TO be grazing land.
According to the records IN the United
States land office, the railroad company
selected. among other lands, all OF Sec
tion 19, township . north, range ) east,
situated in Morgan county. On May
Is, 1905, the Morgan Argentine Mining
company. of which Adrian B. Pembroke
of Salt Lake City Is president, filed In
tbe land Office q protest, alleging that
the land III question was mineral land
and that the selection of the railroad
was in conflict with the mining rights
of the Morgan Argentine company
After The protest had been sent to the
general land Office, hearing was or
dered 10 determine the true character
Of the land in question.
Tried to Avoid Suit.
1t was at this point that Mr.. Penn
broke went to Mr.. Macallister, who was
commissioner OF the land department of
the Union Pacific Railroad company,
with offices at Omaha. and notified him
that the ground would be proven to be
mineralized, if examined by any hon
orablc and competent man selected by
the railroad company. MIR. Pembroke
wished TO prove TO tho company that
the land was mineraliZed, without re,
course to 2 lawsuit, with its delays and
expense.
All overtures on the part of the min
ing company were ignored and hearings
were had before the government Off
cials which resulted IN the Morgan Ar
eentine Mining company being allowed
TO take out patent. But the case did
not come TO rest at this point. there
heing other mining claims involved.
The owners OF these did not seem in
ierested enough 10 defend the title OF
was to prove tho status of these and
other mining claims in the section that
the case was called by the government.
At this point a trial was ordered and
the case set for hearing on February
II. 1908. Then followed series of
contiDuances until March 10, 1909. All
of the evidence was submitted and the
case closed on March IS, 1909. Fol
lowing is portion of the decision:
Testimony Conflicting.
f'Tbe testimony in this case is con-
ficting, Some reputable witnesses tes-.
tify that the land has little or no value
as mineral land. On the other hand.
large number Of equally reputable and
competent witnesses testify that it is
rough, rugged and precipitious. of little
value for grazing; but is of decided val
ue as mineral land and that it abun
dantly justifes the expenditure Of the
necessary expense TO develop the indi
cations of mineral which appear III the
rocks on the surface; that considerable
sums Of money have already been eX-
PENDED IN cuts. tunnels and shafts which
show ores of lead carrying gold and sill
yer: that the principal witness
for the defendant railroad company that
claims that the land is more valuable
for grazing than for mining purposes,
is an officer and manager Of mining
company, and although ho claims to
have purchased portion Of section 10
from the railroad company as grazing
land, indicates by his testimony that he
desires to secure tho land for its mineral
rather than its grazing value.
eve are of the opinion that the
great weight of the testimony estab-
fishes that the land has very little val
he for grazing purposes. and that its
principal value Is as mineral land, and
so decide, and we recommend the can
collation. Of said selection to the ex-
tent of the land described in tho cap
tion hereof -