27. The general policy of British, Spanish and Mexican governments relative to mines of the precious metals discussed. Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199 (1860–61); 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 418. 28. Land is not considered to be surveyed until the township plat has been filed in the local land office. Com'r to John Sutherland, July 14, 1893. 29. A public land survey may be procured under the "special deposit" system by coal claimants. Circular of Aug. 7, 1895, 21 L. D. 83. 30. The failure of government surveyors to segregate mineral from agricultural lands cannot operate to the injury of the rights of occupant miners. Gold Hill Quartz M. Co. v. Ish, 5 Oreg. 104; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 635. 31. The right to an order for inspection and underground survey of mines discussed. St. Louis M. & M. Co. v. Montana Co., 23 Pac. Rep. 510. (Citing Lonsdale v. Curwen, 3 Bligh, 170; Walker v. Fletcher, 3 Bligh, 172; Blakesley v. Whieldon, 1 Hare, 176; Lewis v. Marsh, 8 Hare, 97; Bennett v. Griffiths, 30 Law (J. Q. B.) 98; East India Co. v. Kynaston, 3 Bligh, | 153; Whaley v. Brancker, 10 L. T. (N. S.) 155; Thornburg v. Mining Co., 1 Pac. Law Mag. 267; Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Cone Iron Works, 102 Mass. 80; Thomas Iron Co. v. Allentown M. Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 77; Bennitt v. White 34. An affidavit of citizenship made by a mineral claimant is not only good evidence under the law, before the Land Department, but in any proceeding based on Chapter 6, Title XXXII, United States Revised Statutes. North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 503. (Motion for new trial.) 35. In California miners may go on unpatented agricultural claims for mining purposes. Stokes v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 37; McClintock v. Bryden, 5 Cal. 97; 63 Am. Dec. 87; Fitzgerald v. Urton, 5 Cal. 308; Burdge v. Underwood, 6 Cal. 46; Weimer v. Lowery, 11 Cal. 104. 36. The legislature of California in 1855 passed an act giving all persons the right to work mines upon the public lands, notwithstanding they might be in possession and enjoyment of another for agricultural purposes. Stokes v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 37 (1855). 37. A miner has no right to dig or work within the inclosure surrounding a dwellinghouse, corral, and other improvements of another. Burdge v. Underwood, 6 Cal. 46 (1856.) 38. "The miner having located his claim, is to be treated as an express licensee of the United States, and independent of a purchase from the government of his mining claim, he has, upon compliance with the terms of the act, a right to appropriate the mineral therein contained. A title in fee by patent is offered him, which he may at his pleasure accept or reject." There is no time prescribed within which he shall apply for a patent. Wolfley v. Lebanon M. Co., 4 Colo. 112; 13 Mor. Min. Rep. 282. 39. Previous to 1966, a miner on public land was merely a licensee. Gottschall v. Melsing, 2 Nev. 185; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 667. 40. Under the mining laws of Congress every valid location of a mining claim is achouse, 28 Beav. 119; Blue Bird M. Co. (Lim-companied by the right to the exclusive posited) v. Murray, 23 Pac. Rep. 1022; Bainbridge session and enjoyment of the soil of such on Mines.) 32. A decision by a State court against a United States patent is against an authority exercised under the United States, and may be brought to the United States Supreme Court under the judiciary act. Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160. 33. The question of fact as to the true course of a vein or lode is not a Federal question. Bushnell v. Crooke M. & Sm. Co., 148 U. S. 682. claim. This right is not a mere easement. Upon complying with the terms and conditions of said laws, the locator may have an absolute conveyance of the property. Silver Bow M. & M. Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378; 5 Pac. Rep. 574; Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76; 9 Pac. Rep. 434. 41. A location of a placer claim, using the names of persons as co-locators who are not intended to have any real interest, but who are to convey their rights after location, is a fraud on the government. Mitchell v. Cline, | Wall. 563; Litchfield v. Register and Receiver, 84 Cal. 409; 24 Pac. Rep. 164. 9 Wall. 575; Carrick v. Lamar, 117 U. S. 423. 42. The statutory grant to miners of the 46. Injunction will not lie to restrain the right to explore and occupy public mineral exercise of official discretion. Mississippi v. lands should be liberally construed. Robert-Johnson, 4 Wall. 498; Litchfield v. Register son v. Smith, 1 Mont. 410; 7 Mor. Min. Rep. and Receiver, 9 Wall. 575; Koehler v. Barin, 196. 25 Fed. Rep. 161. 43. "The mining laws are beneficial laws. They should not be, and are not, by the United States Supreme Court, construed technically." Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449; 17 Pac. Rep. 728; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 404. See S. C., 5 Mont. 600; 6 Pac. Rep. 66. 44. It is the policy of the country to encourage the development of its mineral reSteel v. St. Louis Sm. Co., 106 U. S. sources. 447. 45. A mandamus will not lie against officers having discretionary power. Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497; United States v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284; United States v. Conner, 5 47. A coal claimant who successfully contests the coal entry of another has a preference right of entry of the land involved under the act of May 14, 1880. (21 Stat. 140.) Garner v. Mulvane, 12 L. D. 336. 48. An agricultural claimant who successfully contests a mineral entry and secures its cancellation because of the non-mineral character of the land has a preference right of entry. Dornen v. Vaughn, 16 L. D. 8. 49. A successful coal contestant against a homestead entry has the preference right of entry. Com'r to Seattle Office, Oct. 11, 1894, In re Rudd v. Holmstad. The following act, authorizing the entry of petroleum lands under the mineral land laws, was not approved by the President until February 11, 1897, too late for insertion in its proper place on page 29: AN ACT to authorize the entry and patenting of lands containing petroleum and other mineral oils under the placer-mining laws of the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person authorized to enter lands under the mining laws of the United States may enter and obtain patent to lands containing petroleum or other mineral oils, and chiefly valuable there for, under the provisions of the laws relating to placer mineral claims: Provided, That lands containing petroleum or other mineral oils which have heretofore been filed upon, claimed, or improved as mineral, but not yet patented, may be held and patented under the provisions of this Act the same as if such filing, claim, or improvement were subsequent to the date of the passage hereof. Approved February 11, 1897. MANUAL OF PROCEDURE. MINERAL DISTRIBUTION. The public mineral lands in the various States and Territories, with the exception of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas, are subject to exploration, occupation, and purchase under the mineral land laws of the United States. The general government has no ownership in the lands of Texas, the title thereto being in the State, by the terms of its admission into the Union, December 29, 1845, and disposed of under State legislation. The other States in the above list were excepted by express statute, all lands therein being sold as agricultural, without reference to their real character. The States and Territories in which the public domain is found to contain minerals, arranged in the order of their importance in this particular, are Colorado, California, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Arkansas and North Dakota, the production of the precious metals in Colorado probably exceeding that of the other States combined. The Executive Department of the government, charged with the sale of the public lands, obtains its information as to the character thereof chiefly through the representations of those who are seeking to acquire title under the laws. It is unable to advise interested inquirers as to the locality of valuable unappropriated mineral lands, for the reason that the discovery of such value is invariably accompanied by an act of appropriation by the fortunate discoverer. The government can, however, tell the status, whether appropriated and under what law, or whether unappropriated, of any specific tract, and maps can be compiled from the records showing all approved mineral surveys in any locality. RESERVATIONS. Within the various public land States are many tracts of land, often of considerable extent, which are excepted from the operations of the general land laws, such as Indian reservations, National parks, forest reservations, military reservations and private land grants, confirmed and unconfirmed. The Indian reservations, although numerous, are now of comparatively small area. These are being still further reduced by purchases from the Indians by the United States for the purpose of opening the lands thus acquired to disposal under the public land laws. Generally these lands are disposed of under any of the land laws applicable to the character thereof. An exception was |