ing the opposite shores; under such circumstances the locations can not be practicably conformed to survey lines. Wood Placer Min. Co., In re, 32 L. D. 363, p. 364. See Rablin, In re, 2 L. D. 764. Pearsall, In re, 6 L. D. 227. Esperance Min. Co., In re, 10 C. L. O. 338. Wood Placer Min. Co., In re, 32 L. D. 401. A placer entry will not be held for cancellation on the ground that it does not conform as near as practicable to the system of public surveys, where it appears that the entry embraces a deposit located on a small, unnavigable stream, winding through a canyon with precipitous nonmineral and uncultivable banks, but such entry will be allowed, as it is evident that Congress intended by this section to provide for cases where the situation of the deposits is such that conformity of location with subdivisional lines is unreasonable. Rablin, In re, 2 L. D. 764, p. 765. See Ferrell v. Hoge, 29 L. D. 12, p. 14. Snow Flake Fraction Placer, In re, 37 L. D. 250, p. 251. The fact that portions of other claims already entered may be embraced in a placer location by conforming it to legal subdivisions does not make such conformity impracticable within the meaning of this section. Green v. Gavin, 10 Cal. App. 330, p. 337. It is unreasonable, impracticable, and not in harmony with the conformity provisions of the statute to require a mineral claimant, particularly in Alaska, to conform to legal subdivisions of the public survey, and the rectangular subdivisions thereof, when such requirement would compel him to place his lines on other prior located claims or when his claim is surrounded by prior locations, and this whether the claim is on surveyed or unsurveyed lands. Snow Flake Fraction Placer, In re, 37 L. D. 250, p. 258. Overruling and modifying Rialto No. 2 Placer Min. Claim, In re, 34 L. D. 44; Golden Chief "A" Placer Claim, In re, 35 L. D. 557. 4. LOCATIONS CONFORMING TO SURVEY-MARKING BOUNDARIES. While this section requires placer claims to conform to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, yet this is not inconsistent with the provision requiring the claim to be marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced, and this section does not dispense with this requirement. Worthen v. Sidway, 72 Ark. 215, p. 224. The provision of this section requiring placer claims on surveyed lands to conform to legal subdivisions and excusing further survey or plat has no reference to the marking of the boundaries of a claim on the ground, and the statute of Colorado calling for stakes to be set at the angles of a placer claim does not conflict with this section. Saxton v. Perry, 47 Colo. 263, p. 275. The provision requiring placer claims to conform to legal subdivisions does not refer to the marking by the claimant of the boundaries of his claim upon the ground, but has reference only to the plat and survey which are to be filed with the application for a patent. White v. Lee, 78 Cal. 593, p. 595. Where placer claims conform to legal subdivisions no other survey or plat is required, and it would seem to be the intention of the statute that the location of placer claims by legal subdivisions renders the markings of the boundaries on the surface unnecessary. Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409, p. 411. 5. LOCATIONS ON SURVEYED LAND-WHEN PLAT AND SURVEY ARE REQUIRED. The purpose of the requirement of plats in certain cases is to inform the Land Department, as well as conflicting locators or protestants, of all the material facts concerning the same which can be shown by plat and field notes. Khern, In re, 6 L. D. 580. See Mackie, In re, 5 L. D. 199. This section provides that where placer claims are upon surveyed lands and conform to legal subdivisions no further survey or plat is required, and all placer claims shall conform as nearly as practicable to the public land surveys, and no location shall include more than 20 acres for each individual claimant; and where placer claims can not be conformed to legal subdivisions then a survey and plat shall be made as of mineral lands. Khern, In re, 6 L. D. 580. Gerhauser, In re, 7 L. D. 390. Draper v. Wells, 25 L. D. 550, p. 555. McNabb, In re, 42 L. D. 413, p. 416. Ventura Coast Oil Co., In re, 42 L. D. 453, p. 454. See Head, In re, 40 L. D. 135, p. 137. The term 'further survey or plat” used in this section has reference to the survey and plat required on application for patent. Worthen v. Sidway, 72 Ark. 215, p. 224. Placer mining claims located after May 10, 1872, must conform as near as practicable with the public land surveys and the rectangular subdivisions thereof, but when this can not be done an official survey and plat must be made. Holmes Placer, In re, 29 L. D. 368. A mineral claimant who deeds his land to the State relinquishes the land in conflict included in the survey, and as the patent must issue on the description as shown by the survey, an amended survey and field notes and plat become necessary. Kimberly Placer, 27 L. D. 121. An application for patent for a placer mining claim embracing a portion of an irregular legal subdivision from the description of which it would be impossible to identify the land must be accompanied by a survey and plat as required. Chicago Placer Min. Claim, In re, 34 L. D. 9, p. 11. McNabb, In re, 42 L. D. 413, p. 416. C. LOCATIONS ON UNSURVEYED LANDS. Under the provisions of the mining laws and the mining regulations a placer claim upon unsurveyed public lands must be located upon the ground in such shape and position as to conform as nearly as practicable to the system of public land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions thereof, and the rule applies whether the claim is upon surveyed or unsurveyed public lands. Wood Placer Min. Co., In re, 32 L. D. 198, p. 199. Wood Placer Min. Co., In re, 32 L. D. 401, p. 402. A placer mining claim upon unsurveyed lands, under this section, is only indirectly affected by the preceding section relating to the form of placer claim located upon surveyed lands. Ferrell v. Hoge, 29 L. D. 12, p. 15. While placer claims on unsurveyed lands were formerly permitted to pass to patent without regard to their conforming to the public surveys, yet under the specific statutory requirement, and in connection with the gradual diminution of the public domain, the department must require, and especially where the topography of the adjacent ground is not such as to make it impracticable to define the locations in conformity with the system of the public land surveys, and make the claim rectangular in form and of dimensions corresponding to appropriate legal subdivisions, and with east-and-west and north-and-south boundary lines. Laughing Water Placer, In re, 34 L. D. 56, p. 58. Wood Placer Min. Co., In re, 32 L. D. 363. There is no difficulty in applying the rule requiring placer claims on unsurveyed lands to correspond to the system of surveys, and it may be done by locating such claim in rectangular form of lawful dimensions with east-and-west and north-andsouth boundary lines. Roman Placer Min. Co., In re, 34 L. D. 260, p. 262. This section applies to placer locations, both upon surveyed and unsurveyed lands, and when applied to unsurveyed lands means that such claims, if practicable, shall have east-and-west and north-and-south bounding lines and should be rectangular, if practicable, and in compact form. Snow Flake Fraction Placer, In re, 37 L. D. 250, p. 256. The mining laws make special provision for the survey of placer claims not on surveyed lands or which can not be conformed to legal subdivisions, and the return of the surveyor general as to the quantity of land embraced in such a claim is to be taken as conclusive. Mary Darling Placer Claim, In re, 31 L. D. 64, p. 66. Green v. Gavin, 10 Cal. App. 330, p. 335. This section gives no authority for placing the lines of a placer mining location upon previously patented or entered lands, where such location is made upon the unsurveyed lands of the public domain. Golden Chief "A" Placer Claim, In re, 35 L. D. 557. Modifying Rialto No. 2 Placer Min. Claim, In re, 34 L. D. 44. See Snow Flake Fraction Placer, In re, 37 L. D. 250, p. 254. D. POSSESSORY RIGHTS EFFECT OF TEMPORARY ABSENCE. Where a placer mining claim is so marked upon the ground that its boundaries can be readily traced, and notice of such location duly recorded, and the locator is in the possession and working the claim, a temporary suspension of such work for a few days for the purpose of procuring tools and necessary supplies to continue the work in good faith for the diligent and bona fide prosecution of such work does not constitute a break in the plaintiff's actual possession, and he is entitled to protection against an intruder under such circumstances. Hanson v. Craig, 161 Fed. 861, p. 863. E. HOMESTEAD AND MINERAL CLAIMANTS-RELATIVE RIGHTS. The fact that a mineral claimant has conducted profitable mining operations upon one corner of his placer location gives him no right ipso facto as against the homestead claimant for another part of such claim lying in a different quarter section and which was prima facie nonmineral under the previous decision. Montgomery v. Gilbert, 26 L. D. 216. F. REPRESENTATION WORK-VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS Where it is satisfactorily shown that an area embraced in a placer location, or in a group of locations held in common, contain deposits which can be more economically worked by means of a mining dredge than otherwise, and that the owner of such a group has in good faith purchased and actually placed in working order thereon a dredge for working such deposit, and that such dredge has not been used as the basis for patent for any other area, then it may be regarded as a mining improvement and the cost thereof accredited to the group of claims as a part of the statutory expenditure. Garden Gulch Bar Placer, In re, 38 L. D. 28, p. 32. Where marble can be mined more economically through an existing excavation than through an independent plan of development, then a proportionate share of the cost of such improvement may be applied in satisfaction of the statutory requirement. American Onyx & Marble Co., In re, 42 L. D. 417, p. 419. Where a group of placer mining claims contain marble so near the surface as to be most advantageously removed by means of quarrying, an excavation made upon one of such claims is not such an improvement as may be accepted in satisfaction of the statutory requirement. Cassel, In re, 32 L. D. 85. See American Onyx & Marble Co., In re, 42 L. D. 417, p. 419. G. PLACER GROUND-BEDS OF STREAMS. The beds of unnavigable streams containing mineral deposits may be appropriated for mining purposes by placer locations, and as to the water itself, the locator obtains only a usufruct therein. Rablin, In re, 2 L. D. 764, p. 765. See Snow Flake Fraction placer, In re, 37 L. D. 250, p. 251. SECTION 2332, REVISED STATUTES. Where such person or association, they and their grantors, have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the State or Territory where the same may be situated, evidence of such possession and working of the claims for such period shall be sufficient to establish a right to a patent thereto under this chapter, in the absence of any adverse claim; but nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impair any lien which may have attached in any way whatever to any mining claim or property thereto attached prior to the issuance of a patent. This is the same as section 13, act of July 9, 1870 (16 Stat. 217), p. 670. A. PURPOSE AND APPLICATION OF SECTION. C. RIGHTS PROTECTED, p. 550. D. APPLICATION FOR PATENT, p. 550. E. ADVERSE CLAIMS EFFECT ON POSSESSORY TITLE, p. 553. A. PURPOSE AND APPLICATION OF SECTION. The purpose of this section was to lessen the burden of proving the location and transfers of old mining claims where the record title might be lost, and it applied originally to placer claims only; but it is not intended as a separate and independent provision for the patenting of mining claims, and it now relates to both lode and placer claims, and is a part of the body of the mining law, and, properly construed with section 2325, its purpose was to declare that evidence of holding and working of mining claims for a period equal to the local statute of limitations should be sufficient to establish the location of the claim and the applicant's right, in the absence of any adverse claim, but it does not prescribe any method for ascertaining whether an adverse claim exists; and this section was not intended to dispense with the requirements of section 2325 whereby the existence of an adverse claim is made known to the Land Department and protection accorded to adverse rights. Barklage v. Russell, 29 L. D. 401, p. 405. Brady v. Harris, 29 L. D. 426, p. 432. Little Emily Min., etc., Co., In re, 34 L. D. 182, p. 185. See Gaffney v. Turner, 29 L. D. 470, p. 473. Overruling Stewart v. Rees, 21 L. D. 446. This section provides an additional mode of acquiring a mining claim but does not enlarge the class who can acquire such claims. Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, p. 302. This section was enacted to prevent an applicant from failing to obtain a patent for his mining claim because of defects in his claim, when he had held a long undisputed possession, and no one had opposed him; and the land office was accordingly authorized to omit some of the strict proof required from an ordinary applicant in consideration that there was no opposition to the application. McCowan v. McClay, 16 Mont. 234, p. 241. The language of this statute does not indicate that Congress intended to restrict its provisions to cases where the applicant for patent is unable, by reason of lapse of |