Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1914-11-29

pHOENIX. Nov 2S- That the In.
s1Iauon consolidated Copper com
pany has no legal right TO run q tuu-
mel under the property Of the New
Keystone Copper company in the
Miami district is the decision OF the
supreme court The court affirmed
the judgement of the Superior Court
of ella county in sustaining the de-
murer of the Keystone people TO the
complaint of the Inspiration company
This action was commenced on
July II, 1919 by the Inspiration Con-
solidated Copper company against the
New Keystone Copper compgny to con-
denim right cf way for an under
ground Iasaage through the Copper
Hin mining claim belonging to the
latter company for the purpose OF
Transporting ores mined by the plain
tiff i'm it's Live Oak group Of mines
to its working shafts in its Inspiration
group Of mines. and through such
shafts to the surface
It appears that the Inspiration COM
Tauv started the construction of the
tunnel or drift and the Keystone com
pauy. upon discovery of the intention
OF the company and the work being
done. obtained an injunction from the
Superior Court of ella County stop
ping further work and thereupOn the
inspiration commenced this suit to
condemn a right of way under the
right OF eminent domain given by Sec
tion II. Article Q of the Constitution
OF Arizona, which provides that pri.
vate property shall not be taken for
private use, except for private ways
Of necessity and for drains, fumes
or bitches. on or across thu land OF
others for mining, agricultural, domes-
tic or sanitary purposes, No private
property shall be taken or damaged
for public or private use without just
compensation X
The Inspiration company alleged
that il was the owner Of two groups
Of patented mining claims in the
Globe mining district consisting of the
Inspiration group Of 3e claims and the
Live Oak Group of 10 claims and that
there had been disclosed approximate
ly 30.O0O,OO0 tons of copper ore i'm the
former and 100000 tons in the lat
ter, such ores containing an average
Of 2 per cent copper. That ii had pur-
chased ut great expense a mill or con-
centratOr site and was erecting a mill
thereon of a daily capacity of 1900
tons, such mill being approximately
one and a half miles from the Inspi.
ration group and two and one-half
miles from the Live Oak group in a
northeasterly direction; that It was
necessary to treat the ores in large
quantities on account Of their low
grade; that the Inspiration and Live
Oak groups were separated from each
other by the New keystone group Of
claims and had run tunnels or drifts
from the shafts up to the Keystone
line The Inspiration company further
claimed that for the successful work
ings of the Live Oak group OF mines
and the utilization of said mill or CON
~ y
pensablet that it have a right of way
across and throughout the length OF
the Copper Hin claim of the New Key
stone company for the construction.
maintenance and operation OF tun.
mel or drift nine feet high and eleven
feet wide and that the further deyel
opment and mining Of the Live OAK
claim would make them OF great value
and contribute to the development OF
mineral resources and the prosperity
Of the United States and the State OF
Arizona. II further alleged that II
was constructing the said tunnel to
enable it to develop and mine the Live
Oak group Of claims and that the con
struction Of such tunnel was neces
sary for that purpose and that the
same was and would be a public use
for and on behalf Of which it might
exercise the right OF eminent domain
and that the taking of said property
for the construction Of the tunne
across the Copper Hill claim was nee
essary 10 such use and was author
4ktl ug luMs
The lower court sustained the de
murrer Of the New Keystone company
upon the ground that the right o
way for the tunuel or drift sought t,
be condemned was TO be devoted Z,
private use and not a public use.
The Supreme Court holds, IN al
opinion by Judge Ross, that it is no
the public or private character OF th'
use TO which the property is to b
devoted that authorizes its taking
but rather the public policy as an
nounced ia the Constitution. or II
the absence Of constitutional limita
tions. as annennced by the Legislative
body That our Constitution in plail