the [Interior] Department to ascertain whether or not the land contains "valuable deposits" in an ex parte case or a contest. The fact that a claim is contested would not change the character of the land to be taken under this law. In any event, it must contain "valuable deposits." (The Royal K Placer, 13 L. D., 86–89.)

The Land Department has full authority of its own motion or at the instance of others to inquire into and determine whether mining locations within the National Forests were preceded by the requisite discovery of mineral and whether the lands are of the character subject to occupation and purchase under the mining laws, notwithstanding the locator has not applied for patent; and if the locations are found invalid the lands covered thereby will be administered as part of the National Forest without regard to such locations. (H. H. Yard et al., 38 L. D., 59.) Reversed in decision of October 24, 1913, Nichols and Smith case, La Grande, 07670, but pending on motion for rehearing.

Lands belonging to the United States can not be lawfully located or title thereto by patent legally acquired under the mining laws for purposes or uses foreign to those of mining or the development of minerals; and should it be shown in case of an application for mineral patent that the claims applied for were not located in good faith for mining purposes, but for the purpose of securing control of a trail upon lands belonging to the United States, susceptible of such control by reason of the surrounding physical conditions, so as to place the claimant in a position to charge for the privilege of using the trail, and thereby to prevent the free and unrestricted use thereof by the public, such claims would be fraudulent from their inception. and patents thereto could not be obtained 'under the mining laws. (Grand Canyon Ry. Co. v. Cameron, 36 L. D., 67.)

Lands subject to mineral entry-Discovery.

If the land contains gold or other valuable deposits in loose earth, sand, or gravel which can be secured with profit, that fact will satisfy the demand of the Government as to the character of the land as placer ground, whatever the incidental advantages it may offer to the applicant for a patent. (United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 128 U. S., 673, 684.)

A mining location is not perfected or completed until a discovery of mineral within the limits of the claim has been made; and where no discovery was made prior to the filing of an application for patent, such application and the proceedings thereunder, being without legal foundation, can not be recognized as a basis for mineral entry or patent. (Bay City Oil Co. et al. v. Alvarado Oil Co., 43 L. D., 397.)

To attach mineral character to public lands it is not sufficient to demonstrate that adjacent lands are mineral in character. Outcroppings on the land itself are more or less evidentiary, but by no means conclusive of its mineral character, and off the land their value as evidence rapidly lessens. (United States v. Kostelak et al., 207 Fed., 447.)

To constitute a discovery sufficient to initiate a mining right it is necessary that mineral-bearing rock in place be found under such circumstances and of such character that a reasonably prudent man, not necessarily a skilled miner, would be justified in expending time

and money in developing it, with the reasonable expectation of finding ore in paying quantities. (United States v. Lavenson, 206 Fed., 755.)

To constitute a valid discovery upon a lode mining claim three elements are necessary: (1) There must be a vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place; (2) the quartz or other rock in place must carry gold or some other valuable mineral deposit; and (3) the two preceding elements, when taken together, must be such as to warrant a prudent man in the expenditure of his time and money in the effort to develop a valuable mine. (Jefferson-Montana Copper Mines Co., 41 L. D., 320.)

To sustain an application for mineral patent, as against persons alleging the land to be nonmineral, it must appear that mineral exists in quantity and value sufficient to subject it to disposal under the mining laws. In other words, the land must be shown to contain valuable deposits of mineral, which means more than a mere discovery that might be sufficient to support a location in the first instance. (Brophy v. O'Hare, 34 L. D., 596.)

Under the established rule that when public land is sought to be taken out of the category of agricultural lands the evidence of its mineral character should be reasonably clear, the finding of colors of gold, even though fairly good prospects of gold, in placer prospecting, is not sufficient to establish the mineral character of the ground and sustain a mineral location thereof as against a prior entry under the homestead laws. (Steele v. Tanana Mines R. Co., 148 Fed., 678, syllabus.).

Land not shown to contain valuable minerals of the kinds usually developed by mining operations, but which is chiefly valuable because it controls the entrance to a cavern containing crystalline deposits, specimens of which are sold for profit, is not subject to location under the mineral laws. (South Dakota Mining Co. v. McDonald, 30 L. D., 357.)

While the statute does not prescribe what is necessary to constitute a discovery under the mining laws of the United States, it is essential that it gives reasonable evidence of the fact either that there is a vein or lode carrying precious minerals, or if it be claimed as placer ground that it is valuable for such mining; and where there is not enough in what a locator claims to have seen to justify a prudent person in the expenditure of money and labor in exploitation this court will not overthrow a finding of the lower court that there was no discovery. (Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S., 313, syllabus.)

The exposure of substantially worthless deposits on the surface of a lode mining claim; the finding of mere surface indications of mineral within its limits; the discovery of valuable mineral deposits outside the claim, or deductions from established geological facts relating to it, one or all of which matters may reasonably give rise to a hope or belief, however strong it may be, that a valuable mineral deposit exists within the claim, will neither suffice as a discovery thereon, nor be entitled to be accepted as the equivalent thereof. (East Tintic Consolidated Mining Claim, 40 L. D., 271; see same case, 43 L. D., 79.)

The exposure of substantially valueless deposits on the surface of a lode mining claim, in themselves insusceptible of practicable develop

ment, but which taken in connection with other established geological and mineralogical conditions in the district lead to the hope or belief that a valuable mineral deposit exists within the claim, does not constitute the discovery of a vein or lode within the meaning of the law nor afford a valid basis for a lode location. (Rough Rider and other Lode Claims, 41 L. D., 243; see same case, 42 L. D., 584.)

Country rock in which it is claimed "kidneys" of copper ore may be expected to be found, is not itself a lode within the meaning of the mining laws, and the exposure of such rock within the limits of a lode claim, which may or may not contain mineral, does not constitute the discovery of a vein or lode within the meaning of the law, and is not a sufficient basis to support a lode location. (Rough Rider and other Lode Claims, 41 L. D., 255; see same case, 42 L. D., 584.)

The location of a lode mining claim must be supported by the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located; and the exposure of substantially worthless deposits on the surface of a claim, which from observation and geological inference are supposed to indicate that other and unconnected veins or lodes lie at a greater depth, does not constitute a discovery within contemplation of the law, and is not a sufficient basis for a valid location. (East Tintic Consolidated Mining Co. (on rehearing), 41 L. D., 255; see 43 L. D., 79.)

Vein or lode "as used in the acts of Congress is applicable to any zone or belt of mineralized rock lying within boundaries clearly separating it from the neighboring rock." "In general, it may be said that a lode or vein is a body of mineral or mineral body of rock, within defined boundaries, in the general mass of the mountain." (Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Cheesman, 116 U. S., 529, 534.)

Discovery is a prerequisite to initiation of title under the mining laws. (Bakersfield Fuel & Oil Co., 39 L. D., 460.)

To constitute a valid discovery upon a lode mining claim for which patent is sought there must be actually and physically exposed within the limits thereof a vein or lode of mineral-bearing rock in place, possessing in and of itself a present or prospective value for mining purposes. (East Tintic Consolidated Mining Claim, 40 L. D., 271; 43 L. D., 79; see also Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U. S., 85.)

Deposits of slate, which do not carry deposits of any other valuable mineral, when found in quantity and quality sufficient to render the land more valuable on that account than for agricultural purposes, are subject to appropriation under the placer mining laws. (Roy McDonald et al., 40 L. D., 7.)

Valuable deposits of onyx in well-defined fissures in rock in place are subject to appropriation under the lode mining laws. (Utah Onyx Development Co., 38 L. D., 504.)

The act permitting entry under the placer mining laws of lands chiefly valuable for building stone applies only to deposits of stone of special or peculiar value for structural work, such as the erection of houses, office buildings, and such other recognized commercial uses as demand and will secure the profitable extraction and marketing of the product. It does not apply to stone suitable only for building foundations, fences, abutments, or other rough work and which is widely distributed over large regions of territory. (Ex parte Stanislaus Electric Power Co., 41 L. D., 655.)

A deposit of clay suitable for use in the manufacture of Portland cement does not render the land containing it subject to disposition under the placer mining laws. (Battancourt v. Fitzgerald, 40 L. D., 620.)

A deposit of brick clay is not mineral within the meaning of the mining laws. (King et al. v. Bradford, 31 L. D., 108.)

Deposits of gravel and sand, suitable for mixing with cement for concrete construction, but having no particular property or characteristic giving them special value, and deriving their chief value from proximity to a town, do not render the land in which they are found mineral in character within the meaning of the mining laws, or bar entry under the homestead laws, notwithstanding the land may be more valuable on account of such deposits than for agricultural purposes. (Zimmerman v. Brunson, 39 L. D., 310.)

A placer location of 160 acres made by eight persons, which is invalid for lack of discovery, can not be perfected after its transfer to a single individual by a subsequent discovery. (H. H. Yard et al., 38 L. D., 59.)

A single discovery of mineral sufficient to authorize the location of a placer claim does not conclusively establish the mineral character of all the land included in the claim, and the question as to the character of the land is open to investigation by the land department at any time until patent issues. (American Smelting & Refining Co., 39 L. D., 299.)

In determining the character of land embraced in a placer location, 10-acre tracts, normally in square form, are the units of investigation and determination, and if any such area is found to be nonmineral it should be eliminated from the claim. (American Smelting & Refining Co., 39 L. D., 299.)

Location and boundaries-Conflicts-Errors of description.

The position of conflicting mining claims and their positions with relation to each other, must be determined as the claims are defined and established on the ground, and all errors of description must give way thereto. (United States Mining Co. v. Wall, 39 L. D., 546.)

Improvements.

Labor and improvements are deemed to have been made upon a mining claim, whether it consists of one location or several, when the labor is performed or the improvements are made for its development-that is, to facilitate the extraction of the metals-though in fact such labor and improvements may be on ground which originally constituted only one of the locations, as in sinking a shaft, or at a distance from the claim itself, as where the labor is performed for the turning of a stream or the introduction of water, or where the improvement consists in the construction of a flume to carry off the débris or waste material. (Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S., 636, 655; Copper Glance Lode, 29 L. D., 542.)

Labor or improvements to be credited toward meeting the requirements of the statute as to expenditures on a mining claim must actually promote or directly tend to promote the extraction of mineral from the land, or forward or facilitate the development of the claim as a mine or mining claim, or be necessary for its care or the

protection of the mining works thereon or pertaining thereto. (Highland Marie and Manilla Mining Claims, 31 L. D., 37.)

An expenditure of $500 in labor or improvements to be available as a basis for patent to a mining claim must have been made upon or for the benefit of the location for which patent is sought; and the work performed upon and for the benefit of a 20-acre placer location is not available as a patent expenditure for the benefit of a maximum location of 160 acres by eight persons embracing the 20-acre location and 140 acres of entirely new ground. (Charles H. Head et al., 40 L. D., 135.)

In determining whether the requisite expenditure of $500 in labor or improvements has been made upon a mining claim for which patent is asked, the proper test is whether the reasonable value of the work performed or improvements relied upon amounts to that sum. Proof of the actual amount paid or of the actual number of days spent in prosecution of such work is not conclusive. (Samuel B. Beatty et al., 40 L. D., 486.)

Improvements made prior to the location of the mining claim or claims to which their value is sought to be accredited are not available toward meeting the requirements of the statute relative to expenditures. (Tough Nut No. 2 and Other Lode Claims, 36 L. D., 9; see also C. A. Sheldon et al., 43 L. D., 152.)

No part of a wagon road lying partly within and partly without the limits of a group of mining claims, constructed and used for the purpose of transporting machinery and supplies to, and ore from, the group is available toward meeting the requirement of the statute respecting expenditures prerequisite to patent. (Fargo Group No. 2 Lode Claims, 37 L. D., 404; Modified Tacoma etc. Co., 43 L. D., 128.)

Mill site.

The continued use or cccupancy for mining or milling purposes is necessary to maintain a valid mill-site location. (Weber v. Carroll, unreported; decided by the Secretary of the Interior, January 16, 1905.)

A mill-site location may be contiguous with the side of a lode claim. (Yankee Mill Site, 37 L. D., 674.)

* *

A mill site is required to be used or occupied distinctly and explicity for mining or milling purposes in connection with the lode claim with which it is associated *. Some step in or directly connected with the process of mining or some feature of milling must be performed upon or some recognized agency of operative mining or milling must occupy the mill site at the time patent thereto is applied for to come within the purview of the statute. (Alaska Copper Co., 32 L. D., 128.)

A decision by the Department of the Interior canceling a millsite entry, without passing upon the validity of the mill-site claim or location or the claimant's possessory rights or ownership in the premises, in no wise affects the legal rights, if any, the claimant may have in the mill-site claim; and where the land is included within the limits of a National Forest, but excepted from the operation of the proclamation creating the same, by reason of the mill-site claim,

10283°-16-5