A location made in accordance with the local rules and customs of miners in force at the time is recognized and protected by the mineral laws of the United States subsequently enacted. Glacier Mountain, etc., Min. Co. v. Willis, 127 U. S. 471, p. 482. This section concedes to mining districts the power to diminish the surface width of mining claims from 300 feet on each side of the middle of the vein to 25 feet. Northmore v. Simmons, 97 Fed. 386, p. 388. See Parley's Park Silver Min. Co. v. Kerr, 130 U. S. 256, p. 261. Miners may limit the width of a lode claim to 25 feet on each side of the middle of a vein or lode; but such a rule or custom must be established and must be in force at the time and place of the location, and such rule must be in accord with the United States statutes and with the statutes of the State. North Noonday Min. Co. v. Orient Min. Co., 1 Fed. 522, p. 527. Whether surface ground to the width of 300 feet on each side of the middle of the vein can be taken under this section depends upon local regulations or State laws. Monarch of the North Claim, In re, Copp's Min. Lands 304, p. 305. Mason, In re, 8 C. L. O. 104. This section makes no provision for a discovery shaft and this may be required or permitted by local statute. O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248, p. 251. 23. LOCATION NOTICE SUFFICIENCY AND EFFECT. A location notice must conform to the requirements of this section. Seidler v. Lafave, 4 N. Mex 369, p. 370. Seidler v. Lafave, 5 N. Mex 44. A notice of location posted upon mineral land before discovery of a vein or lode is an absolute nullity. Bonner v. Meikle, 82 Fed. 697, p. 698. Gemmell v. Swain, 28 Mont. 331, p. 336. See Upton v. Larkin, 5 Mont. 600. The location of a mining claim, which, when duly recorded, is constructive notice of the existence of a vein or lode, is one made under the law and meeting all the requirements of the law, and must be one made after the discovery, within its limits, of a valuable vein or lode. Wilson Creek Consol. Min., etc., Co. v. Montgomery, 23 L. D. 476, p. 477. 24. TAXATION OF MINING CLAIMS. If a State tax is in point of fact levied on the property right of the United States, it must be held void; but if it is levied on the property or the recognized possessory right of the locator, and can be collected without affecting or embarrassing the title of the United States and property which belongs to the Government, then there is no ground for interference with the processes of a State in its collection of the tax. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762, p. 763. When mineral ores become detached from the soil in which they are embedded they become personal property of the mine owners and are free from any lien, claim, or title of the United States, though taken from the public lands, and may be subject to taxation by a State, and collection of the taxes may be enforced by sale the same as other species of property. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762, p. 765. A State has no power to make its lien for taxes levied on mineral ores a lien on a mining claim if it interferes in any manner with the right or title of the United States; but it may make such tax a lien on the possessory right of the miner, held and owned by him as a separate and distinct property right from that of the Government in the public land. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762, p. 766. A valid subsisting mining location or an interest therein is subject to taxation by a State, though the title to the land on which such mining claim is located is in the United States and a part of the public lands. Elder v. Wood, 208 U. S. 226, p. 231. See Arizona v. Copper Queen etc. Min. Co., 233 U. S. 87. SECTION 2321, REVISED STATUTES. Proof of citizenship, under this chapter, may consist, in the case of an individual, of his own affidavit thereof; in the case of an association of persons unincorporated, of the affidavit of their authorized agent, made on his own knowledge or upon information and belief; and in the case of a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, or of any State or Territory thereof, by the filing of a certified copy of their charter or certificate of incorporation. Same as the latter part of section 7, act of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91, p. 94), p. 680. A. PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. B. ALIEN LOCATOR, p. 101. A. PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. 1. INDIVIDUAL LOCATOR. a. METHOD OF PROVING. b. TRUSTEE AS LOCATOR CITIZENSHIP OF BENEFICIARY. 2. UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION AS LOCATOR. 3. CORPORATION AS LOCATOR. 1. INDIVIDUAL LOCATOR. a. METHOD OF PROVING. Proof of citizenship under this section may consist in the affidavit of the applicant. The affidavit of the locator as to citizenship raises a presumption of citizenship. The citizenship of a locator of a mining claim may be established by his oath accompanying the recorded notice of a location, and this is taken as prima facie evidence of the fact and is sufficient until doubt is thrown upon the accuracy of his statement. Hammer v. Garfield Min., etc., Co., 130 U. S. 291, p. 299. Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, p. 501. Proof of citizenship is sufficient where it consists of an affidavit of the claimant corroborated by two witnesses in which it is stated that the claimant is a native-born citizen of the United States. Mosley, In re, 6 L. D. 620, p. 621. The provision of this section as to the proof of citizenship by the affidavit of the locator necessarily contemplates an affidavit to some extent based upon information and belief and the statute substitutes such affidavit for the record of naturalization. North Noonday Min. Co. v. Orient Min. Co., 11 Fed. 125, p. 126. This section explicitly sets forth the method to be pursued for the purpose of establishing the qualifications of citizenship and the department can not impose an additional condition at variance with the terms of the act. Mooney, In re, 3 C. L. O. 68. Where the locator's title to a mine is of recent origin and his citizenship is denied, the fact of his naturalization or of his declaration of intention to become a citizen must be proved by the record of some court of competent jurisdiction. Wood v. Aspen Min., etc., Co., 36 Fed. 25, p. 26. Citizenship may be proved like any other fact and is a question for the court and jury to pass upon. Strickley v. Hill, 22 Utah 257, p. 269. The Land Department must consider and pass upon the qualifications of the applicant, the acts he has performed to secure the title as well as the nature of the land and whether it is of the class which is open to sale. Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U. S. 447, p. 451. The burden of proving citizenship is on the locator of a mining claim, where his citizenship is expressly denied. Wood v. Aspen Min., etc., Co., 36 Fed. 25. Objection to the question of want of citizenship can not be taken for the first time on appeal. O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418, p. 420. The rule of evidence as to citizenship prescribed in this section of the Revised Statutes, which is section 7 of the act of May, 10 1872 (17 Stat. 91) has been changed since the decision of August 4, 1871, in this claim, and the defect mentioned in that decision has been cured. New Idria Min. Co., In re, 6 C. L. O. 71, p. 72. b. TRUSTEE AS LOCATOR CITIZENSHIP OF BENEFICIARY. Where an applicant for entry for a mining claim is a trustee, then proof of citizenship as to the beneficiaries is required. Capricorn Placer, In re, 10 L. D. 641, p. 642. 2. UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION AS LOCATOR. In case of an association or persons unincorporated, the proof of citizenship may consist of an affidavit of an authorized agent made either upon his own knowledge or upon information and belief. O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418, p. 420. The provision of this section contemplates an affidavit on information and belief where the naturalization of a person other than the person making the affidavit is concerned, and the affidavit of an authorized agent on an unincorporated association may be upon information and belief. North Noonday Min. Co. v. Orient Min. Co., 11 Fed. 125, p. 126. This section requires proof of citizenship in every member of an association of persons unincorporated and accepts as proof of citizenship in case of a domestic corporation a certified copy of its certificate of incorporation. Igo Bridge Extension Placer, In re, 38 L. D. 281, p. 282. A mining claim located by an association of persons assigning to each a particular part of the vein is not void because one of such locators was an alien, but the law will be vindicated by declaring void the particular location of such alien, without regard to the effect of such a holding. Golden Fleece Gold, etc., Min. Co. v. Cable Consol. Gold, etc., Min. Co., 12 Nev. 312, p. 326. See Rose v. Richmond Min. Co., 17 Nev. 25, p. 60. 3. CORPORATION AS LOCATOR. Corporations were intended to be admitted to all the benefits of the mining laws. Frank Hough Min. Co. v. Empire Prince Min. Co., 42 L. D. 99, p. 102. The proof of citizenship required by this section, where the locator is a corporation is properly made by filing with the application for patent a certificate of incorporation under the seal of the State in which the corporation was organized. Rose No. 1, etc., Lode Claim, In re, 22 L. D. 83. Clark's Pocket Quartz Mine, In re, 27 L. D. 351, p. 352. Holman v. Central Montana Mines Co., 34 L. D. 568, p. 571. See South Yuba, etc., Min. Co. v. Rosa, 80 Cal. 333. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation of a mining company is sufficient to establish the citizenship of the stockholders as the law presumes that stockholders are all citizens of the State of incorporation. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 70 Fed. 455, p. 463. Jackson v. White Cloud Gold Min., etc., Co., 36 Colo. 122, p. 124. The language of this section as to proof of citizenship is in the alternative and the statutory requirement is satisfied by doing either one or the other, and the filing of the proper certificate of incorporation is sufficient to prove the corporate existence. Silver King Min. Co., In re, 20 L. D. 116. To support location of a mining claim made by á corporation it must be shown that such corporation was organized under the laws of the United States or of some State, and that its members were citizens of the United States, and severally and individually competent to make the location. Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105, p. 107. See McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630. North Noonday Min. Co. v. Orient Min. Co., 1 Fed. 522. Lee Doon v. Tesh, 68 Cal. 43. In a suit on an adverse claim where the plaintiff alleges that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State, and the answer admits such allegation, it is not necessary to prove the citizenship of the stockholders. Jeckson v. White Cloud Gold Min., etc., Co., 36 Colo. 122, p. 125. B. ALIEN LOCATOR. 1. EFFECT AND RIGHTS. 2. NATURALIZATION RETROACTIVE EFFECT. 1. EFFECT AND RIGHTS. The incapacity of an alien to take a conveyance of a mining claim is open to question by the Government only. Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U. S. 505, p. 508. Duncan v. Eagle Min. Co. 48 Colo. 569, p. 573. A transfer of a mining claim by a locator to an alien is not to be treated as ipso facto an abandonment. Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U. S. 505, p. 508. 2. NATURALIZATION-RETROACTIVE EFFECT. Naturalization has a retroactive effect and is deemed a waiver of all liability to forfeiture and a confirmation of title. Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U. S. 505, p. 508. Lone Jack Min. Co. v. Megginson, 82 Fed. 89, p. 93. |