appears that the location of a mining claim was nothing more nor less than the taking into actual possession of a limited quantity of mining ground, and this was accomplished by simply marking its boundaries and going to work inside of them. But in taking possession of their claims miners sometimes failed to mark their boundaries as distinct or to do as much work on them as later comers, desirous of securing claims for themselves, thought essential to an actual possession. Hence arose disputes and violent conflicts. The next and final step in the development of miners' law accordingly was the regulation of the mode of marking the boundaries or otherwise designating the locality and extent of claims and the quantum of work that must be done to hold them. As a fence around a claim was utterly useless, four stakes at the corners or two stakes at the ends of the river boundary of a placer claim were usually allowed to be a sufficient marking of its extent; but, in this connection, a written notice, descriptive of the claim and containing the name of the owner, was sometimes required to be posted on the ground and recorded by the district recorder. Then, as it was frequently impossible to continue work upon a claim on account of scarcity or superabundance of water, and as miners were frequently driven from the vicinity of their claims by the severity of the winter season, the rules went on to prescribe the mini-' mum number of days' work per annum by which a claim could be kept good, or the maximum of time during which the miner might absent himself from his claim without beng deemed to have forfeited or abandoned it. In rare and exceptional instances miners may have attempted to extend their regulations to other matters than those mentioned, but I risk nothing in saying that the above statement embraces the essence of all the miners' law of the Pacific Coast relating to placer claims. After these regulations had been some time in force came the discovery of veins or lodes of gold bearing rock in place, and to them the law of the placers was adapted with the least possible change. "First-The size of claims was regulated by allowing so many feet along the vein. "Second-The mode of making out or designating the claim was prescribed; and "Third-The amount of work necessary to hold it. "The principal modification of the placer-mining law as adapted to lode claims was upon the second point. The placers were located as surface claims and were best marked by stakes at the corners; notice and record, when required, being deemed of minor importance. In lode claims these conditions were reversed. The exact course or strike of a lode was seldom ascertainable from the croppings at the point of discovery; and as the claim was of so much of the lode in whatever direction it might be found to run, with a strip of the adjacent surface, taken for convenience in working the lode and as a mere incident or appurtenance thereto, it was found to be impracticable to mark the claim` by stakes on the surface, and hence the notice and record. came to play a more important part in designating the claim. They came in fact to be all-important, locations of lode claims being commonly made by posting a notice in reasonable proximity to the point at which the lode was discovered or exposed, stating that the undersigned claimed so many feet of the vein extendng so far and in such direction or directions from the discovery point, together with the amount of adjacent surface ground allowed by the rules of the district. The notice so posted had the effect under the rules of holding the ground described a certain length of time, commonly ten days, within which time it was necessary to have the notice recorded in the district records in order to keep the claim good. This was all that was required under the head of marking or designating the locality and extent of the claim, and it was thereafter held by simply doing the prescribed amount of work. This was the sum total of the California miners' law." In view of the historical importance of the fugitive records of the local rules and regulations of the various mining districts, and as some of the provisions of many of them are, under our peculiar federal legislation, still in force, I have, at the risk of being statistical, endeavored to collate the names of the different districts and the dates of adoption of the several codes of rules and regulations, and to point out where authentic records thereof are extant. Where I have not specifically referred to the particular work from which the record is taken, it is in all cases to be found in the invaluable collection of the local rules and regulations of the miners of California contained in the official Report of the United States Census for 1880, Vol. XIV, pages 271 to 345, inclusive. The record is as follows: EARLY MINING DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA. NEVADA COUNTY Neveda county quartz regulations, December 20, 1852. Extend over all quartz mines and quartz mining property within the county. Gold Mountain mining district, December 30, 1850; con- Kentucky Hill mining district, May 1, 1851. Nebold Hill mining district, June 22, 1852. Mount Olivet mining district, June 25, 1852. Union Hill No. 2 mining district, June 25, 1852. Buffalo Hill mining district (no date); transferred to book of Township Recorder, June 15, 1852. Caledonia Hill mining district, June 29, 1852. Pecker's Hill mining district, June 29, 1852. Poppy squash Hill mining district, June 30, 1852. Pierce's Ledge (formerly Indian Hill) mining district, July 22, 1852. Sierra Nevada Hill mining district, August 10, 1852. Mount Pleasant mining district, October 11, 1852. Constitution Hill mining district, October 12, 1852. Jumped and called Iowa Hill, April 17, 1854. Cedar Hill mining district, October 17, 1852. Madison Quartz Ledge and Hill mining district, August 18, 1855. Hoosac Hill mining district, (no date). Rhode Island Hill mining district (no date). Ashville Hill mining district. Same regulations as Cedar Hill. Oak Hill mining district. Same regulations as Cedar Hill. Sweetland mining district, 1850; amended in 1852; divided into three districts with separate regulations (Hittell's History of California, Vol. III, page 260). North San Juan Placer regulations, November 5, 1854. (Ross Browne's Mineral Resources of the West, 1867, page 240.) Albion Hill, Gold Hill No. 2, Independence Ledge, Kentucky Fountain Ledge, Lewis' Lead, North Point Ledge, Oro Fino Hill, Ohio Hill, Pine Hill Ledge, Quimbaugh Hill, Richmond Hill, Squirrel Creek Hill, St. Louis Ledge, Texas Ledge, and Trenton Ledge mining districts are all governed by the county laws. TUOLUMNE COUNTY— Jackass Gulch mining district (including Soldier Gulch), 1848; regulations put into writing in 1851. (Hittell's History of California, Vol. III, page 257; Shinn's Mining Camps, page 237.) Jacksonville mining district, January 20, 1850. (The Public Domain, 1883, page 317; Hittell's History of California, Vol. III, page 130.) Jamestown mining district (no date); laws repealed and new regulations adopted, 1853. (Hittell's History of California, Vol. III, page 258.) Springfield mining district, December, 1854. (Yale's Mining Claims and Water Rights, page 84; Hittell's History of California, Vol. III, page 258; Shinn's Mining Camps, pages 238-242.) Shaw's Flat mining district (no date). ifornia, Vol. III, page 259.) (Hittell's Cal Sawmill Flat mining district (no date). Hittell's Cal ifornia, Vol. III, page 259.) Brown's Flat mining district (no date). Hittell's Cal ifornia, Vol. III, page 259.) Jackson Flat and Tuttletown mining district, November, 1855. (Yale's Mining Claims and Water Rights, page 84: Hittell's California, Vol. III, page 259; Shinn's Mining Camps, pages 240-242.) Columbia district placer regulations. (Ross Browne's Mineral Resources of the West, 1867, page 238.) New Kanaka Camp placer regulations. (Ross Browne's Mineral Resources of the West, 1867, page 238.) Tuolumne county quartz regulations, in force September 1, 1858, extending over and governing all quartz mining property within the county. (Ross Browne's Mineral Resources of the West, 1867, page 237.) MARIPOSA COUNTY— Rules adopted at convention of quartz miners at Quartzburg, June 25, 1851. Coulterville mining district, March 5, 1864. Drytown mining district, June 7, 1851, consisting of al! that portion of the then county of Calaveras south of the divding ridge between the Cosumnes river and Dry creek, and north of the Mokelumne river. Volcano quartz mining district, February 6, 1858. J. Tullock and F. Reichling the committee that drafted the code. "Jackson and all other Veins of Metal District," February 7, 1863; amended May 22, 1863. Puckerville (now Plymouth) mining district, February 11, 1863. B. F. Richtmyer, secretary. E. S. Potter elected recorder; new regulations adopted at store of F. Sheaver, May 23, 1863. Clinton mining regulations. (Ross Browne's Mineral Resources of the United States, 1868, page 73.) Pine Grove mining regulations. (Ross Browne's Mineral Resources of the United States, 1868, page 73.) EL DORADO COUNTY— Grizzly Flat mining district, February 4, 1852; amended February 26, 1853; none of the books containing records made under the first laws are in existence; amended and name changed to Mount Pleasant mining district. French Town mining district, November 12, 1854; amended January 3, 1858; amended April 6, 1859; amended March 20, 1863. Smith's Flat mining district (no date of adoption given); amended February 20, 1855; amended February 12, 1873. Spanish Camp quartz mining district, April, 1862; name changed to Agra district, June 14, 1866. Diamond quartz mining district, February 14, 1863. El Dorado (Mud Springs) mining district, April 7, 1863. Kelsey mining district, regulations adopted May 7, 1873; in conformity with the Mineral Law of Congress of May 10, 1872. Greenwood mining district (no date). No written regulations now in force. CALAVERAS COUNTY Angels mining district, July 20, 1855; amended March 24, 1860. Record of district mining locations burned in 1855. Murphy's mining district, October 26, 1857. |