Show COAL LAND OR NOT COAL LAND aara ARGUED hubert work secretary of the inte lor at a hearing in the department depart nent at washington friday wa via askea to reverse a of the of the land office and confirm the arany gran 1 to the etite ite of utah of a school secelia sect a ettori lia of land and ia in carbon county which in IA recent years baa has been shown to contain cutain valuable coal coat dep deposits the ketchum coal company and the pleasant valley coal coat company which now assert title to the lauds lands claiming title through th tin state lat the appeal th the estate tate of utah presenting its appeal in the birti of a brief out m bitted by Att attorney orlier denegal IT 11 cluff through coves malav Ifa lity the coal com eom were represent ed ed in person bj by charles F consaul lo 10 cal coil attorney who made the only ment in opposition to the attorneys pf the general land laud office briefly the tivo two coal companies as sailed tle ruling of the commissioner of the land load office alleging he li ind id erred in ruling that this land was knowlt coal oal baij 1 at the time of the admission of utah a a state anil and if that conte content riton bo be sustained by the acre tarr 1 il aas as maintained the state had A herff ferfort t right ight r as it did to dispose of this lan lant I 1 to private parties who in tur turn n con keyed title to the ketchum and pitas pleas ant aut valley companies the commission er at hell held that at the time of the adais slon alon of utah there were geological in dea tiona of coal value in this land and relying on the supreme court easlon ed slon in the sweet ease case ruled that as known mineral land ind this section dif not pass to the state arguing for the coal companies mr consaul said the evidence did dot act how show these lands were known coal coat land at the date of admission there having been no east oal development on this or ad joining land at that time in 1902 the stated ignorant of the char character acte r of tha the land advertised this section tor for bale sale and mr ket hum bought half of it r ui wi acre the other half was act not old sold until later and it also went for aso A ater thi tho tate had pas pared ed title ical was developed and it was con tended that rt until then ws was the c 41 1 character of the land established attorney general chuffe brief in the inala supports aup ports the contention of of the the coal companies he ile holds that under the he rules of the interior department and the practice that existed prior tu td 1905 lari lar 1 I could not be held bell to be vin 1 able for coal unless coal had been 9 ac 90 0 dually taken fram itt it wb whereas crist it is now being held by thi tb i t that it Is to possible to char trize t land A as 1 mineral in charuba charp charu br r on geological inference based on discoveries on neighboring lands to apply the modern rule to lands involved in a sale by br the tate state when the more liberal rule was as in force to the state u J he off gued was unfair those to W whop h OFT taa passed it its op P po coed ted ali title ia i maintained kanj coffiee attorneys that coal coat has been that the very fact develon a on this land laud establishes its minal creter cr coar eter ard hd oper tes to de do ift feit fe it tb abc state title decision was re sed |