Central Eureka Mining Company v. United States, 49468
Court | Court of Federal Claims |
Writing for the Court | JONES, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE |
Citation | 138 F. Supp. 281 |
Parties | CENTRAL EUREKA MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, v. The UNITED STATES. ORO FINO CONSOLIDATED MINES, Inc. v. The UNITED STATES. ALASKA-PACIFIC CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES. IDAHO MARYLAND MINES CORPORATION v. The UNITED STATES. HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES. (1) BALD MOUNTAIN MINING COMPANY, (3) Alabama-California Gold Mines Company, (5) Consolidated Chollar Gould & Savage Mining Company, (7) Ermont Mines, Inc. v. The UNITED STATES. |
Docket Number | 49693,49486,50182,50214.,No. 49468,50195,49468 |
Decision Date | 20 February 1956 |
138 F. Supp. 281
CENTRAL EUREKA MINING COMPANY, a Corporation,
v.
The UNITED STATES.
ORO FINO CONSOLIDATED MINES, Inc.
v.
The UNITED STATES.
ALASKA-PACIFIC CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY
v.
The UNITED STATES.
IDAHO MARYLAND MINES CORPORATION
v.
The UNITED STATES.
HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY
v.
The UNITED STATES.
(1) BALD MOUNTAIN MINING COMPANY, (3) Alabama-California Gold Mines Company, (5) Consolidated Chollar Gould & Savage Mining Company, (7) Ermont Mines, Inc.
v.
The UNITED STATES.
Nos. 49468, 49486, 49693, 50182, 50195, 50214.
United States Court of Claims.
February 20, 1956.
John Ward Cutler, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs Oro Fino Consolidated Mines, Inc., Bald Mountain Mining Company, Consolidated Chollar Gould & Savage Mining Company and Ermont Mines, Inc.
O. R. McGuire, Jr., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff Alaska-Pacific Consolidated Mining Company. Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., and V. A. Montgomery, Seattle, Wash., were on the brief.
George Herrington, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff Idaho Maryland Mines Corporation. Orrick, Dahlquist, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., were on the briefs.
Edward W. Bourne, New York City, for plaintiff Homestake Mining Company. James D. Ewing, Eugene Z. Du
Kendall M. Barnes, Washington, D. C., with whom was Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Thomas H. McGrail, Washington, D. C., was on the brief.
Before JONES, Chief Judge and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE, Judges.
LITTLETON, Judge.
The plaintiffs were, at the times herein mentioned, the owners and operators of gold mines. On October 8, 1942, the War Production Board issued Limitation Order L-208 requiring certain so-called non-essential mines to close down and cease all mining operations, or any other operations in and about the mines, except to the minimum amount necessary to maintain the mines safe and accessible. Violations of the order were punishable by fine and imprisonment. By its terms, the order suspended for the life of the order the right of plaintiffs to mine and sell gold.
It is plaintiffs' contention that this action by the Government amounted in law to a taking, for a public purpose, of their right to make profitable use of their mining properties for which just compensation is due them under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In the alternative, the plaintiffs contend that by virtue of the jurisdiction conferred on this court by the special jurisdictional act of July 14, 1952, 66 Stat. 605, they are entitled to recover for the closing of their mines the amount of losses incurred as a result of Order L-208. It is plaintiffs' position that in the absence of the special jurisdictional act, this court would not have jurisdiction to render a judgment in favor of a gold mine owner for losses incurred unless they could establish a compensable taking, but that the act conferred on this court jurisdiction to render judgment for such losses where they resulted from the issuance of L-208.
Following denial by this court of the Government's motion to dismiss the petition in the case of the Idaho Maryland Mines Corp. v. United States, 1952, 104 F.Supp. 576, 122 Ct.Cl. 670, the instant cases were consolidated for trial before a commissioner of the court on the question of the Government's liability, the question of just compensation or the amount of damages being reserved for further proceedings.
By the time L-208 was issued by the War Production Board, on October 8, 1942, the President had delegated to that Board all allocation, priorities and requisitioning powers granted to him by Congress,1 except the power to requisition
The mining industry, along with other industries, was subject to regulation of its acquisition and use of materials, supplies and equipment needed in the defense effort. A general repair order known as P-22 was issued on September 9, 1941, which authorized a variety of industries, including the mining industry, to use only the lowest preference rating, i. e., A-10, to acquire the materials needed for the repair of their mining property and equipment. On September 17, 1941, Preference Rating Order P-56 granted an A-8 preference rating to so-called recognized mining enterprises to acquire materials needed by them for operating supplies and for the maintenance of the mines' property and equipment. This order represented the first special treatment accorded to gold mines as distinguished from other types of mines, in that placer gold mines were expressly excluded from any benefits under the order. Lode gold mines were permitted the use of the A-8 rating because it was recognized that denying to them repair and maintenance supplies would cause depreciation of their installed equipment and structures, and because many lode mines produced metals other than gold which were useful to the defense effort.
As the critical materials supply situation became more acute, the Office of Production Management2 found it necessary to take action that would insure a sufficient amount of new and repair parts for the mines producing critical
No agency of the Government was ever granted any real power to control civilian manpower during the war. However, the War Production Board found it necessary to take into consideration manpower problems obviously inherent in the overall problem of increasing the production of vital raw materials and finished products necessary for defense. Shortly after the establishment of WPB's predecessor agency, the Office of Production Management, an operating division known as the Labor Division was established in OPM to study and keep abreast of the labor requirements for national defense and to advise and collaborate with the other divisions of OPM on all matters affecting labor.3 In the summer of 1942, the Labor Division of what was now WPB, became concerned with the seriously increasing shortage of hardrock or underground miners in the vital nonferrous metal mines, particularly in the copper mines. This concern was shared by the recently established War Manpower Commission and by the War Department which had become alarmed by the growing shortage in the output of copper. Upon investigation, these groups found that the exodus from the strategic metal mines was the result of the higher wages and better working conditions available to the miners in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries and on the armed services building construction projects frequently being carried on in the vicinity of the copper mines. It was also determined that a large number of experienced miners were being drafted into the armed services and Selective Service was adverse to granting deferments to such workers. Despite the urgings of mine employers and the government agencies involved to miners to stay on the job, the strategic metal miners continued to leave the mines for the more attractive job opportunities offered by other defense industries. Production was also hampered by the generally low morale of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Central Eureka Mining Company, 29
...report. The Court of Claims, with two judges dissenting, held that the six respondents now before us were entitled to just compensation. 138 F.Supp. 281, 310, 312, 134 Ct.Cl. 1, 53, 56. 9 A new trial was denied. 146 F.Supp. 476, 134 Ct.Cl. 130. We granted the Government's petition for certi......
-
Fulton County v. Woodside, s. 23343
...to 'distribute,' 'assign,' or 'designate.' Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dict. (1963) p. 23 (see Central Eureka Min. Co. v. U.S., 138 F.Supp. 281, 295, 134 Ct.Cl. 1), and 'to fix the place of; locate' American College Dict. The authority of the Chief Judge by published rule to allocate th......
-
Laycock v. United States, 14858.
...property for which "just compensation" is due under the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Central Eureka Mining Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 1956, 138 F.Supp. 281. The United States of America, as sovereign, has consented to be sued under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(a) (2), says appellant, in ca......