Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-06-27

that in the beginning the participants
were subscribers for joint interest and
not owners of separate claims and
that the substantial character Of the
transaction never changed. In 1908
they were still 'co-owners' Of single
property, although In order to acquire
| it each particular claim had been al
loted to a particular individual and
had been entered by him In his name" "
The original agreement with the
Guggenheims contemplated the forma-
ton Of corporation as soon as the
titles were secured. This plan gave the
Guggenheims right to mine the coal
on royalty basis. The Guggenheims
were also to build railroad from the
mines to the coast. As finally entered
the agreement with the Guggenheims
for a sale aroused serious objection
from several of the claimants.
"The fact" says Commissioner Den
nett. that it was reported to the Gug-
genheims that there were thirty-three
independent claimants to be reckoned
with now strengthens the defense. 1t
is not to be supposed that any sane
men representing these entrymen as
a combination would suggest to pros
the claims were Illegal and the several
entries subject to forfeiture.
Claimants Admitted Combination.
THAT all the work so far done was
paid for from the common fund Is not
denied 1t is admitted by the claim
ants and frankly stated in the brief of
their counsel that one claim Of 160
acres cannot be proftably worked,
that some tive and some how the
claims must be operated together. It
is reasonable to suppose that business
men would agree to the common in
vestment of their monies to Jointly
explore a coal field in Alaska with the
understanding that the several claims
should be operated separately, or with
no understanding with respect thereto.
Would they consent to spend money
jointly where there was to be no
common profit?
Knowing that an area Of 160 acres
could not be successfully operated, and
that the greater the area the more
valuable the property would men con-
nected by ties of blood have consented
that their claims be scattered through
out the field? Would men who had
been associated together as partners
since their youth and who had grown
rich together have agreed to the plac-
ing Of their claims at remote distances
from each other? If each claimant was
to receive single tract and no inter-
est in any other, would Cunningham
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, i
value as compared with the others?
eff there was no prior agreement,
would Clarence Cunningham in April
1907, beore many the certificates
we're issued have entered into nego-
tiations with the Guggenhefms looking
forward to the disposition Of the COM
bined properties?
"The amounts contributed by the
several entrymen were substantially
the same. If it was not understood
there was to be common profit,
would the sixteen upon whose claims
nothing whatever was done have per-
mitted the use and would thirty-two
of them have suffered their joint funds
to be expended in driving the expen-
sive tunnels for one claim?
"A further discussion Of the facts
is not necessary. They speak for
themselves and speak plainly There
was not at anytime single act per-
formed that connected any claimant
with the precise tract he obtained.
There was not a dollar spent by any
locator individually or by agent on the