is held to mean "as near as reasonably practicable," and in each case a sound discretion must be exercised in determining the question of practicability. Rablin, In re, 2 L. D. 764. Pearsall & Freeman, In re, 6 L. D. 227. See Snow Flake Fraction Placer, In re, 37 L. D. 250, p. 251. Whether a placer claim is located on surveyed or unsurveyed land the locator is required in either instance to do all the necessary acts to prove a location, but upon surveyed land the location shall be made to conform as nearly as practicable with the public land surveys, and aside from this there is no difference in locations on the two classes of lands. This and section 2331 R. S. provide for ten-acre subdivisional surveys, and also contemplate cases where it is not practicable to conform the location to such subdivisional lines, but they do not limit such cases to those where there has been a prior appropriation of a part of the subdivision, but extend to cases where it may be impracticable to so locate a placer claim. Rablin, In re, 2 L. D. 764. 13. IRREGULAR LOCATION-LOCATOR NOT PROTECTED. The locators of a placer mining claim in Alaska who staked off their claim and marked the boundaries on the ground, showing a location 2 miles long and 660 feet wide, can not hold such ground as against another locator who in good faith and peaceably and neither clandestinely, nor fraudulently made an overlapping location, which did not interfere with the pedis possessio of the first locators and on which a discovery was made before a discovery was made by such first locators. Hanson v. Craig, 170 Fed. 62, p. 65. Vacating Hanson v. Craig, 161 Fed. 861, p. 863. 14. RELOCATION. A placer mining claim may be relocated where the original boundaries are uncertain or not known, and for the purpose of making the boundaries conform to the legal subdivisions of the public survey. Good Return Min. Co., In re, 4 L. D. 221. An attempted relocation of a placer mining claim made according to the Government survey and for the alleged purpose of placing the same on record in the records of the proper county, is a good location of a placer claim, though there had in fact been no prior location. Good Return Min. Co., In re, 4 L. D. 221, p. 225. 15. RECORD NOT REQUIRED. Neither this nor any other section of the mining laws requires a record of a placer claim. Freezer v. Sweeney, 8 Mont. 508, p. 514. 16. POSSESSORY RIGHTS. The right to possession of a mining claim comes through a location, and such location can only be made by a citizen of the United States or one who has declared his intention to become such. The owner of a placer claim is entitled to all the mineral deposits contained therein, excepting the veins or lodes within the meaning of section 2320, R. S. Freezer v. Sweeney, 8 Mont. 508, p. 515. In placer mining land the surface is essential to its development as mining ground. Conlin v. Kelley, 12 L. D. 1, p. 3. Townsite of Deadwood, In re, 8 C. L. O. 18. Persons who go upon or build upon land after the location of a placer mining claim are charged with notice of the fact of its location and are trespassers as against the placer location. Ferrell v. Hoge, 18 L. D. 81, p. 83. A homestead entryman acquires no right to the land embraced in his entry where it was previously located and occupied as a placer claim. Piru Oil Co., In re, 16 L. D. 117, p. 119. See Fort Maginnis, In re, 1 L. D. 552. The construction of a dam or bulkhead across a canyon or ravine on unoccupied public lands for the purpose of impounding, and in and upon which the person so constructing such dam impounded and preserved a vast quantity of tailings, and over which he and his heirs exercised continuous acts of ownership, constitute sufficient acts of appropriation and location to confer the possessory right to such lands as a placer mining claim to the extent of the ground that was reserved and tailings covered, and that such acts constitute sufficient physical markings necessary to designate the ground or give notice to the world of the extent of the claim and to manifest the intention of the locator to claim and hold possession of the land for such purpose. Ritter v. Lynch, 123 Fed. 930, p. 932–34. In a contest between an applicant for land valuable for stone under the timber and stone act and an applicant as a placer claimant, it must be decided in favor of one having priority in the assertion of a legal claim. Sheperd v. Bird, 17 L. D. 82, p. 84. 17. UNPATENTED LOCATION EFFECT. The fact that many years have elapsed since the original location of a placer claim and that no patent has been issued therefor does not affect its validity. Clipper Min. Co. v. Eli Min., etc., Co., 194 U. S. 220, p. 224. See Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 4, p. 16. A valid location, though unpatented, is a grant and the estate enjoyed is in the nature of an estate in fee, and it consists of an appropriation of land by the locator to the exclusion of all others, and a junior locator of a placer claim can not be permitted to lay his lines across a similar claim already located. Stenfjeld v. Espe, 171 Fed. 825, p. 828. 18. LOCATIONS ON STATE AND SCHOOL LANDS- -EFFECT. A placer claim can not be located on lands conveyed by patent to the State of Colorado for improvement purposes. Twin Lake Consol. Placer Min. Co., In re, 10 C. L. O. 292, p. 293. Lands disposed of under this section before the grant to a State attached do not pass under such grant. Gibson, In re, 21 L. D. 327, p. 328. In the case of a contested entry of a mining claim located on school lands granted to a State, the question at issue is whether or not there exists upon the land, as a present fact, deposits of gold or other mineral in paying quantity, by which must be meant such quantities as in view of the physical difficulties to be overcome would justify mining. Washington v. McBride, 18 L. D. 199, p. 202. A placer entry made on lands chiefly valuable for ordinary building stone at a time when such entries were recognized by the Department as valid is excepted from a subsequent grant of school lands to a state and such an entry should be carried to patent. Gibson, In re, 21 L. D. 327, p. 329. Distinguishing South Dakota v. Vermont Stone Co., 16 L. D. 263. 19. TOWN-SITE CLAIMANTS CONFLICTING RIGHTS. This section prevents a town-site entry from carrying title to two classes of mining claims and it is sufficient if, in fact, the property is a known mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper. Callahan v. James, 141 Cal. 291, p. 293. The previous location, entry, or patent of town site, while not conferring any right to the underlying veins or lodes, gives to the town site occupants surface rights to which those of the subsequent mineral claimants are necessarily subject. Mandeville, In re, Copp Min. Lands 328, p. 329. B. NATURE AND FORMS OF DEPOSITS. 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2. PARTICULAR FORMS OF DEPOSITS. a. DEPOSITS WARRANTING LOCATIONS. b. DEPOSITS NOT WARRANTING LOCATIONS. C. CALCIUM PHOSPHATE LODE LOCATED AS PLACER EFFECT. 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. By this section placer claims include all other forms of mineral deposits except veins of quartz or other rock in place. Reynolds v. Iron Silver Min. Co., 116 U. S. 687, p. 694. United States v. Iron Silver Min. Co., 128 U. S. 673, p. 678. All forms of mineral deposits, except veins of quartz or other rock in place, are subject to entry as placer mining claims. Meiklejohn v. Hyde, 42 L. D. 144, p. 145. The words "including all forms of deposit" in this section must be construed in the light of the declared general purpose of the mining act as a whole and depend for their meaning not only upon specific words but have reference to the expressions "all valuable mineral deposits" and "lands valuable for minerals" as used in other sections, and are intended to include all forms of mineral deposit of whatever kind or nature, and whether metallic or otherwise, excepting veins of quartz or other rock in place. Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 243. See Forsythe v. Weingart, 27 L. D. 680. The comprehensive provisions of this and the succeeding section must be given reasonable effect and operation and can not be restricted by the enumeration of certain named metallic substances in other sections. Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 243. The words "or other valuable deposits" depend for their meaning not only on the specific words which they follow, but depend also upon and draw from the larger and more comprehensive expression "all valuable mineral deposits," as used in the preceding sections, and are intended to include all forms of mineral deposit of whatever kind or nature, and whether metallic or otherwise, excepting veins of quartz or other rock in place. Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 241. Scientifically speaking petroleum is a mineral, and the same may be said of salts and phosphates and of clay containing alumina, and other substances in the earth, yet it does not follow that they come within the meaning of the mineral statutes. Union Oil Co., In re, 23 L. D. 222, p. 229. See Salt Bluff Placer, In re, 7 L. D. 549. Southwestern Min. Co., In re, 14 L. D. 597. Jordan v. Idaho Aluminum Min., etc., Co., 20 L. D. 500. Deposits other than veins or lodes are subject to location and patent only under the law applicable to placer claims. Henderson v. Fulton, 35 L. D. 652, p. 663. It is not to be presumed that the Government intended to deprive citizens of the use of or the means of acquiring title to rock and stone for building purposes, and if land containing these materials could not be entered under this section, then there was no law at the time of this enactment authorizing title to such materials to be acquired. Freezer v. Sweeney, 8 Mont. 508, p. 513. The deposit here referred to means a deposit having some special value other than that of mere stone quarrying for general purposes. Conlin v. Kelly, 12 L. D. 1, p. 2. Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 240. See Parks v. Hendsch, 12 L. D. 100. Hayden v. Jamison, 16 L. D. 537. Clark v. Ervin, 16 L. D. 122. 2. PARTICULAR FORMS OF DEPOSITS. a. DEPOSITS WARRANTING LOCATION. A deposit of asphaltum in lodes or veins in rock in place can not be secured as a placer claim under this section. Harry Lode Min. Claim, In re, 41 L. D. 403, p. 408. Building sand is valuable mineral within the meaning of this section. Loney v. Scott, 57 Oreg. 378, p. 384. Lands chiefly valuable for deposits of building stone but containing no veins of quartz or rock in place are subject to entry as placer claims. Bennett, In re, 3 L. D. 116, p. 117. Johnston v. Harrington, 5 Wash. 73, p. 78. This section extends and enlarges the signification given to placer claims and makes such locations include all forms of deposit excepting quartz veins or other rock in place, and it embraces quarries of rock valuable for building purposes. Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 241. Contra Clark v. Ervin, 17 L. D. 550, p. 553. Wheeler v. Smith, 5 Wash. 704. See Forsythe v. Weingart, 27 L. D. 680. This section is construed as embracing quarries of rock valuable for building purposes. Freezer v. Sweeney, 8 Mont. 508, p. 513. Prior to the act of August 4, 1892 (27 Stat. 348), there was no authority to locate and purchase lands chiefly valuable for building stone under the placer mining law. Jamison v. Hayden, 15 L. D. 276. Veins of clay and other nonmetalliferous mineral substances are subject to location the same as placer mining claims. Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 25 L. D. 233, p. 239. See Montague v. Dobbs, 9 C. L. O. 165. Land containing fire clay or kaolin may be taken up under the law relating to placer mines. Dobbs Placer Mine, In re, 1 L. D. 565, p. 569. Clark v. Ervin (on review), 17 L. D. 550, p. 551. Montague v. Dobbs, 10 C. L. O. 88. See North Noonday Min. Co. v. Orient Min. Co., 1 Fed. 522. Jupiter Min. Co. v. Bodie Consol. Min. Co., 11 Fed. 666. Eureka Consol. Min. Co. v. Richmond Min. Co., 8 Fed. Cas. 819. Where land containing a deposit of limestone is sought to be entered as a placer claim it must appear affirmatively that the land is more valuable for the limestone than for agricultural purposes, or that the lands are not valuable for any other purpose than the one for which application is made. Long v. Isaksen, 23 L. D. 353, p. 357. Lands containing deposits of marble are subject to location and patent only under the laws applicable to placer mining claims. Henderson v. Fulton, 35 L. D. 652, p. 664. See Palmer, In re, 38 L. D. 294, p. 296. The title of the Government to oil-bearing lands can only be acquired pursuant to the provisions of the mining laws relating to placer claims. Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. 531, p. 532. Olive Land & Dev. Co. v. Olmstead, 103 Fed. 568, p. 572. Lands chiefly valuable for the deposits of petroleum contained therein are mineral lands within the meaning of the mining laws and subject to location and entry as such, and may not be selected by a railroad company under its grant reserving and excepting "mineral lands." Union Oil Co., In re (on review), 25 L. D. 351, p. 357. Tulare Oil & Min. Co. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 29 L. D. 269, p. 271. McQuiddy v. California, 29 L. D. 181, p. 183. Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S. 313, p. 320. Cates v. Producers & Consumers Oil Co., 96 Fed. 7, p. 8. Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 673, p. 676. Olive Oil & Dev. Co. v. Olmstead, 103 Fed. 568, p. 572. Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 4, p. 14. Lange v. Robinson, 148 Fed. 799, p. 803. Weed v. Snook, 144 Cal. 439, p. 440. Berentz v. Belmont Oil Min. Co., 148 Cal. 577, p. 582. New England & Coalinga Oil Co. v. Congdon, 152 Cal. 211, p. 213; 92 Pac. 180. McLemore v. Express Oil Co. 158 Cal. 559, p. 562. Overruling Union Oil Co., In re, 23 L. D. 222. See Roberts v. Jepson, 4 L. D. 60. Rogers, In re, 4 L. D. 284. Piru Oil Co., In re, 16 L. D. 117. Phosphate deposits existing in lands containing phosphate deposits not in the form of veins or lodes within walls of rock in place must be regarded as placer lands. Phosphate Deposits, In re, 17 C. L. O. 75, p. 76. Lands valuable for an extensive deposit of finely divided pumice or volcanic ash, known as silicate, possessing a positive and commercial value, and where the area in which such lands are situated is rough and broken and the surface generally of a |