Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-06-26
DECISION ADVERSE
TOALASKAN TITLES
CONTINUED from First Page.)

Continued from First Page)
the conclusion that the claims had no le-
gal standing and ordered them Cancelled
Secretary Fisher promptly approved this
| finding. although to complete the record
he must do SO formally upon appeal to
| him
Among the Cunningham claimants are
a number of prominent men of the north
| west. Commissioner bennett refers to
| them as having sufficient means to have
carried forward extensive coal operations
In Alaska. The various claimants We're
| interested in the Alaskan coal situation
in 1902 by Clarence Cunningham. who
made the various filings and conducted
most of the negotiations The claims
| once were clear-iisted for patent. but
final action was held up at the request of
CLAWS.
There seems to be no doubt" said
| Commissioner bennett in his decision,
| that in the beginning the participants
were subscribers for joint interests and
not owners of separate claims and that
| the substantial character of the transac-
ton never changed. In 1905 they were
still 'co-owners' of single property, al
| though in order to acquire it each par
| ticular claim had been allotted to par
ticular individual and had been entered
| by him in his name"
| The original agreement with the Gug-
genheims contemplated the formation of
corporation as soon as the titles were
secured. This plan gave the Guggen-
helms the right to mine coal on a royalty
basis. The Guggenheims also were to
build railroad from the mines to the
| coast. AS finally entered into, the agree
ment with the Guggenheims for sale
aroused serious objection from several
Of the claimants.
1.-The fact" says Commissioner Den
1 80 81 r,,rr
genheims that there were thirty-three in
| dependent claimants to be reckoned with
in no wise strengthens the defense. 1t is
not to be supposed that any sane man
representing these entrymen as COM
| mfttee would suggest to prospective
purchaser of the property that the claims
| were illegal and the several entries sub
ject to forfeiture.
Payments Made From Common Fund
THAT all the work so far done was
paid for from the common fund is not
denied. 1t is admitted by the claimants
! and frankly stated in the brief Of their
counsel that one claim of 100 acres can
not be profitably worked. that some time
and somehow the claims must be operated
| together. Is 1t reasonable to suppose that
| business men would agree to the common
investment of their moneys to jointly ex-
plore a coal field in Alaska with the un-
Iderstanding that the several claims should
be operated separately, or with no un-
derstanding with respect thereto? Would
| they consent to spend money Jointly
where there was to be no common profit !
| Knowing that an area of 16O acres
could not be successfully operated and
| that the greater the area the more val
liable the property, would men connected
| by ties of blood have consented that their
| claims be scattered throughout the field
Would men who had been associated to-
gether as partners since their youth and
| who had grown rich together have agreed
/ to the placing of their claims at remote
| distances from each other. If each
| claimant was to receive a single tract
| and no interest in any other, would Cum
bingham have located the great majority
| of the men who first went into the
scheme and made it's success possible on
the timber claims Of the southern tier.
| claims which possessed but little value
| as compared with the others?
"If there was no prior agreement, would
| Clarence Cunningham In April. 1907, be-
| fore many of the certificates were issued,
| have entered into negotiations with the
Guggenheims looking to the disposition of
the combined properties?
| Entrymen Contributed Equally.
1.-The amounts contributed by the sew
eral entrymen were substantially the
same? If it was not understood there was
| to be a common profit, would the sixteen
| upon whose claims nothing whatever was
done, have permitted the use of their
| funds for the development Of the other
| claims. and would thirtytwo of them
have suffered their joint funds to be ex-
| pended In driving the expensive tunnels
| on one claim?
| "A further discussion Of the facts is not
| necessary. They speak for themselves,
and speak plainly. There was not at
| any time a single act performed that
| connected any claimant with the precise
| tract he claimed to locate There was not
ally or by an agent, on the land he en-
| tered. but every act done and each dollar
| disbursed were for the purpose of de-
| termining whether the field as a whole
| contained workable deposits of coal.
Prior to the hearing eighteen of the
| claimants admitted under the solemn
| sanction Of an oath that they proceeded
from the beginning with the understand
| ing that when the patents were secured
| they would form a company for the de-
| velopment of the property.
THE plan from the outset was to &C
Quire a coal field at joint expense to be
developed for the common benefit. There
| was not at any time a departure from
| this original compact, save the substitu-
| ton of the salary to Cunningham for the
| one eighth interest he intended to secure
| in the several claims.
Colorado Compliance With Law.
| Carrying into effect the purpose Of &C
| quiring this coal field for the common
use and benefit of the members of the
association, claims were located and en-
tries made in the names of individuals,
but the making of these locations and
entries in the manner indicated were but
| incidents in the transaction; but means to
an end, and the names of the individuals
| were used only to effect a colorado COM
pliance with the law.
| They experienced no choice in the Sc
lection of their claims manifested no
interest in their individual values, and
Except. perhaps. Baker, sought no in
formation as to their respective locations.
The field jointly acquired by all of them
| and explored at the common expense
was the only object Of their solicitude .
PINCHOT IS DELIGHTED