mining laws.1 A prospector may protect himself in his pedis possessio, while searching for mineral.2 Several cases appear in the reports which might be construed to be not entirely in harmony with the rule announced in the foregoing cases. Some of them recognize the doctrine as to all ground not covered by the pedis possessio. Others do not mention the element of force as entitled to controlling weight in determining the question. In most of these cases the statement of facts upon which the decisions are based is very meager, and we are therefore unable to say to what extent, if at all, any of them repudiate the doctrine of Belk v. Meagher. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that if there is any conflict between the decisions here referred to and the doctrine announced by the supreme court of the United States, they must, to the extent of such conflict, be disregarded. While mere occupation without color of title is insufficient to prevent a competent locator from entering upon the land in a peaceable manner, for the purpose of making a location, no such entry may be made where title to the land has been secured or a valid location of the same has been made. This rule is subject to the ́ qualification that the lines of a junior lode location may 'Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541, 543, 15 Pac. 93; Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 4, 14. Crossman v. Pendery, 8 Fed. 693; Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 4. Eilers v. Boatman, 3 Utah, 159, 2 Pac. 63; Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 581; Weese v. Barker, 7 Colo. 178, 2 Pac. 919; Lebanon M. Co. v. Con. Rep. M. Co., 6 Colo. 380; Faxon v. Barnard, 4 Fed. 702; North Noonday v. Orient, 6 Saw. 507, 11 Fed. 125; Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. 531, 541; Quinby v. Conlan, 104 Fed. 420, 423; Goodwin v. McCabe, 75 Cal. 584, 588, 17 Pac. 705; Crossman v. Pendery, 8 Fed. 643; Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 4, 18. And see Kirk v. Meldrum (Colo.), 65 Pac. 633. Thallmann v. Thomas, 111 Fed. 277; Seymour v. Fisher, 16 Colo. 188, 27 Pac. 240; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279. be laid upon a valid senior location for the purposes of securing underground or extralateral rights not in conflict with any rights of the senior location;1 and the land department has held that the lines of the junior claim may be so laid, though the senior claim has been patented; but the supreme court of Montana doubts that this is the law. The land department has also permitted the lines of a location to be laid upon prior patented agricultural land. This subject will be fully discussed in another portion of this work." 3 219. Conclusions. We are justified in deducing the following general rules upon the subject under discussion: (1) Actual possession of a tract of public mineral land is valid as against a mere intruder, or one having no higher or better right than the prior occupant; (2) No mining right or title can be initiated by a violent or forcible invasion of another's actual occupancy; (3) If a party goes upon the mineral lands of the United States and either establishes a settlement or works thereon without complying with the requirements of the mining laws, and relies exclusively upon his possession or work, a second party who locates peaceably a mining claim covering any portion of the same ground, and in all respects complies with the requirements of the 'Del Monte Min. Co. v. Last Chance Min. Co., 171 U. S. 55, 83; Crown Point Min. Co. v. Buck, 97 Fed. 462; Empire State-Idaho M. and D. Co. v. Bunker Hill and Sullivan M. and C. Co., 109 Fed. 538; Empire State etc. Co. v. Bunker Hill etc. Co., 106 Fed. 471; Hidee Gold M. Co., 30 L. D. 420. 2 Hidee Gold Min. Co., 30 L. D. 420. See, also, Empire State etc. Co. v. Bunker Hill etc. Co., 106 Fed. 471, S. C. (on appeal), 114 Fed. 417. 3 State v. District Court (Mont.), 65 Pac. 1020. Alice Lode Claim, 30 L. D. 481. See, post, §§ 363, 365. mining laws, is entitled to the possession of such mineral ground to the extent of his location as against the prior occupant, who is, from the time said second party has perfected his location and complied with the law, a trespasser.1 The peaceable adverse entry by the locator, coupled with the perfection of his location, operates in law as an ouster of the prior occupant.2 The lines of a junior lode location may be laid across a senior lode location for the purpose of defining the extralateral rights of the junior location; and the lines may be so laid across any unpatented public land, and perhaps across patented land, if done openly and peaceably. In some of the states laws are enacted protecting the right of a discoverer upon the public mineral lands for a limited period of time, to enable him to perfect his location. Where no such local statutes are in force, according to the current of authority, by the policy of the law a reasonable time is allowed to such discoverer to complete his appropriation. During such periods the possession or occupation of the discoverer will be protected as against subsequent locators. This subject will be fully considered in another portion of this treatise, and the application of the doctrines above enunciated to such cases will there be fully explained.3 'This is substantially the charge to the jury upheld in Horswell v. Ruiz, 67 Cal. 111, 7 Pac. 197. Belk v. Meagher, 3 Mont. 65, 80. 'See, post, § 339. Su CHAPTER IV. OF THE PERSONS WHO MAY ACQUIRE RIGHTS TO PUBLIC MINERAL LANDS. ARTICLE I. CITIZENS. II. ALIENS. III. GENERAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ALIENS IN THE STATES. ARTICLE I. CITIZENS. § 223. Only citizens, or those who | §225. Minors. have declared their inten- 224. Who are citizens. § 226. Domestic corporations. 2223. Only citizens, or those who have declared their intention to become such, may locate mining claims. As the paramount proprietor of its public domain, the United States has not only the right to regulate the terms and conditions under which it may be disposed of, but it is also its privilege to designate the persons who may be the recipients of its bounty, and prescribe the qualifications of those who may acquire and enjoy permanent estates on its lands. In the exercise of this privilege, it has ordained that,— "All valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to "the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are "hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to 66 "occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United "States, and those who have declared their intention to "become such, under regulations prescribed by law, "and according to the local customs or rules of miners "in the several mining districts, so far as the same are "applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the "United States."'1 Therefore, to lawfully locate and hold a mining claim, the locator must either be a citizen of the United States or he must have declared his intention to become such in the manner provided by the naturalization laws of congress. To entitle an alien who has declared his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States to these privileges, it must appear that such intention is a bona fide existing one at the time of purchase. Enlistment in the army is a declaration of an intention to become a citizen. As to who may attack a location made by an alien, and how it may be attacked, will be fully considered in a succeeding section. We here state simply the abstract rule of law. 3 ? 224. Who are citizens.-It is hardly within the legitimate scope of this treatise to exhaustively discuss the law of citizenship. But as introductory to the pres 1 Rev. Stats., § 2319. Officers and employees in the United States land office are prohibited from becoming interested in the purchase of any public lands. Rev. Stats. § 452. By statute (30 Stats. at Large, p. 409), in Alaska a native-born citizen of the dominion of Canada may enjoy the same mining rights which are accorded citizens of the United States in British Columbia and the Northwest territory; but no greater rights may be accorded to such a Canadian citizen than are accorded to an American. This statute has been declared to be inoperative at present because Americans are not given any mining rights in Canada except the right to lease mines, and our system does not contemplate the leasing of mines. 27 L. D. 267. 'Saturday Lode Claim, 29 L. D. 627. Strickley v. Hill (Utah), 62 Pac. 893. |