The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1911-04-07
HANFORD lEC|EEs
FAVORABLY FOR
COAL CLAIMANTS

Seattle. April 4.-L1m1tatlOnS on tne
entry or manner of entry Of coal
claims in the coal lands of Alaska, ex-
cept as expressly prohibited by the
1904 law. were swept aside by United
States District Judge G. H. Hanford
Yesterday in q 5,000-word decision
handed down in, the case against
Charles F. Munday. Archie w Shiels
and Earl E. Siegley, charged with
conspiring to defraud the government
of coal lands In Alaska.
BY the terms of Judge Hanford's de-
cision there is no law barring any COM
pany. corporation or person from ac-
curing by assignment or original To-
cation all the coal lands in Alaska.
Theory Swept Aside.
The theory that the locator of coal
claim must locate it for his own use
and benefit is swept aside by the de-
cision, which declares that one man or
one corporation may locate as many
unentered claims as it can find.
The objections of the interior de-
partment to granting patents in cases
where locators have been charged
with assigning their claims to corpor-
atoms. as in the Cunningham and 9th
er cases, are waved aside by Judge
Hanford, who held that lOcators may
assign at any time after they have To-
Gated their claims, and that a corpora
ton may take as many such assign
ments as it is able to acquire by pur-
chase.
The decision goes to the very basis
of the prosecutions against the Alaska
coal claimants, and by inference as
serts that congress, approaching the
immense outlay of money necessary to
the development of the Alaska coal
lands and carrying that coal to mar
ket, expressly provided that large
tracts might be acquired and devel-
oped by large corporations.
Dummy Locations Legal.
In holding that plural locations may
be made, the decision practically adj
mitted that locations made by dunn
mics were perfectly legal, thus remov--
ing another prop from under the gov
ernment's prosecutions of other men
charged with attempting to secure coal
lands by fraud.
BY holding that locators could not
assign or agree to assign coal claims
to alien corporations, Judge Hanford
refused to direct verdict for the de-
PENDANTS, allowing the government to
go to trial on the one issue that it
must prove the defendants guilty. of a
conspiracy tQ4sell coal clains'to tht1
'rHrrnS Coa1 tnf csnhpSny, foreign
corporations.
Upheld on One Point Only.
Judge Hanford reviewed at length
the facts charged in the Indictment
with their legal applications. He held
that the Indictment charged that the
defendants secured entries upon coal
lands for the benefit of the Alaska De
velopment Co., domestic corporation,
and the Pacific Coal & Oil Co.. a re-
puted foreign corporation.
He held that it was illegal for de-
PENDANTS to enter into any agreement
with foreign corporation, whereby
the foreign corporation should enjoy
the fruits or BENEFITS flowing from the
coal lands. 1t was upon this point
alone that he upheld the indictment.
Law Of 1904 Stands.
The contention of the defense that
the law OF 1904 was alone applicable
to Alaska coal land was upheld by the
decision. in it's entirety.
After quoting the full text Of the
1904 law, the court held:
1.-The statute comprised in these four
quoted sections is specially applicable
to Alaska, and was enacted by con-
gress to meet an urgent demand,
amounting to necessity. and because
the previous statute Of June 6, 1890.
extending the general coal land law OF
the United States to Alaska, was Inn
practicable, because conditions made
it impossible to acquire any rights un-
der it by compliance with its require
ments.
IN letter addressed to the regis
tiers and receivers in the district Of
Alaska. dated June q, 1900, the COM
missioner Of the general land ONCE
announced the enactment Of this law,
and explained that, under sections
2S47 to 2353. inclusive. Of the Revised
Statutes. which the act purported to-
extend to Alaska, coal land filings and
entries must be by legal subdivisions
as made by the regular United States
survey, and that, under section 2401