|
INTRODUCTION
<br />Then came the lawsuits. They began typically enough
<br />involving adverse claims - overlapping or incomplete surveys,
<br />improper locations, and so on. They escalated, also typically, as
<br />parties who'd sold what they thought were worthless or nearly-
<br />worthless claims saw their former properties developed into
<br />bonanzas sued. They argued they had been duped into selling their
<br />claims for far less then their real value. But these suits were
<br />mere preliminary bouts, warmups for the main event, Hvman v.
<br />wheeler, 29 Fed. 347 (C.C.D. Colo, 1886), the famous fight over the
<br />"apex" of the great Aspen mountain vein.b The litigation put a
<br />damper on the Aspen boom for three years.
<br />Development continued, although diminished considerably, as
<br />a few operators whose claims were not in doubt produced high-grade
<br />ore for direct shipment and lower-grade feed for wheeler's smelter.
<br />By the summer of 1887, the town boasted a water system, an
<br />electrical system, and of course police and fire departments. But
<br />what Aspen really needed to continue and indeed increase its
<br />prosperity and its standing among other Colorado cities was the
<br />resolution of the apex litigation and completion of a rail link to
<br />the outside world. Both were tantalizingly near that summer.
<br />Hyman and the "apexers" won a jury verdict on the principal
<br />complaint the previous December. Other legal actions and disputes
<br />were quickly settled or compromised, including the so-called Della-
<br />S. compromise on Smuggler mountain.
<br />Anticipating settlement of the apex suits, not one but two
<br />° Of the dozens of claims on Aspen mountain, only two, the Durant,
<br />owned by Hyman and his associates, and the Spar, controlled by Jerome B.
<br />Wheeler, had been located on the outcrop, or natural exposure, of the ore
<br />vein - the "apex." But the controversy surrounded the Aspen claim, which
<br />lies northwest of the Durant, and through which the vein passed at depth,
<br />not outcropping at the surface, thus being a "sideline" claim. The Aspen
<br />was owned by Wheeler, D. R, C. Brown, and E. T, Butler. In the summer
<br />of 1884 the owners leased the Aspen, and later that fall the "leasers,"
<br />with 60 days to run on their lease, struck rich ore. In that 60 days
<br />they removed silver ore worth $600,000. Hyman, who'd been unable to
<br />develop the Durant due to lack of funds, sued, claiming that under the
<br />1872 Mining Law, as the owner of the apex of the vein, he was entitled
<br />to the ore from that vein as deep as it could be followed regardless of
<br />whether it crossed the sideline into another. This action, along with
<br />several companion legal actions, paralyzed major production from Aspen's
<br />richest claims from early 1885 until the arrival of the railroads in late
<br />1887 and early 1888. (The litigation also delayed the arrival of the
<br />railroads; the railroad barons were not particularly enthusiastic about
<br />extending their lines, at great cost, into a mining district strangled
<br />by lawsuits.) The Durant and Aspen mines, as well as several others,
<br />were tied up in litigation. Hyman lacked the funds to develop the
<br />Smuggler and litigate at the same time, and, naturally, other operators,
<br />both "apexers" and "sideliners," were leery of developing their
<br />properties until the litigation was settled.
<br />Bruce A. Collins - xv - Snucc[.eR BIBLIOGRAPHY
<br />
|