occupants have not been molested by the only authority which possesses any power in the premises-the state of California. Some conflicts have arisen with the littoral owners, but that is not a matter which presently con cerns us. ARTICLE II. THE LOCATION AND ITS REQUIREMENTS. § 432. Acts necessary to constitute a valid placer location un- § 433. Requisites of a valid placer location where supplemental state legislation exists. 2432. Acts necessary to constitute a valid placer location under the Revised Statutes, in the absence of supplemental state legislation and local district rules.Generally speaking, the acts required to be performed in order to complete a valid location under the federal laws applicable to placers are the same as are required in cases of lode locations.1 Section twenty-three hundred and twenty-nine of the Revised Statutes provides: "Claims usually called placers, including all forms "of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent under like "circumstances and conditions as are provided for "vein or lode claims." This has been construed to mean: (1) That there must be a discovery upon which to base the location; 2 McCann v. McMillan, 129 Cal. 350, 62 Pac. 31. 'McDonald v. Montana Wood Co., 14 Mont. 88, 43 Am. St. Rep. 616, 35 Pac. 668; Lincoln Placer, 7 L. D. 81; Ferrell v. Hoge, 18 L. D. 81; 19 L. D. 568; Louise M. Co., 22 L. D. 409; Rhodes v. Treaz, 21 L. D. 503; S. P. R. R. v. Griffin, 20 L. D. 663; Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409; Union Oil Co., 23 L. D. 222. (2) The location must be marked upon the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced.1 As was said in a previous section, referring to lode claims, no notice need be posted, no particular kind of marking is required, nor is any record made necessary. No preliminary development work is prescribed. In the absence of supplemental state or local regulation the discovery and marking the boundaries perfect the location.2 2433. Requisites of a valid placer location where supplemental state legislation exists.-As in the case of lodes, most of the states within the purview of this treatise have enacted laws prescribing that certain acts be performed in order to perfect a placer location, in addition to the requirements of the federal law. These supplemental provisions vary in the different states. Taking the Colorado statutes as a type (although the laws of some of the states are more elaborate), the following acts are required to complete a location of this class: (1) Discovery; (2) Posting a notice of location; (3) Marking the boundaries in a specified manner; (4) Recording a certificate of location. As these features are common to both lode and placer claims, what we have heretofore said with reference to the necessity of complying with these conditions, the White v. Lee, 78 Cal. 593, 12 Am. St. Rep. 115, 21 Pac. 363; Sweet v. Webber, 7 Colo. 443, 4 Pac. 752; Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, 23 Pac. 419; McDonald v. Montana Wood Co., 14 Mont. 88, 43 Am. St. Rep. 616, 35 Pac. 668. 2 Ante, § 328. 3 Ante, § 329. 4 Ante, § 329. order in which the acts may be performed,1 and the effect of locations made by agents,2 need not be here repeated. ARTICLE III. THE DISCOVERY. 437. Rules governing discovery § 438. Unit of placer locationsthe same as in lode locaDiscovery in each twentytions. acre tract. 8437. Rules governing discovery the same as in lode locations.-The subject of discovery has been fully considered when dealing with lode locations in a previous article. The principles there announced apply with equal force to placers, so far as the character of the deposits will admit. Discovery is just as essential in case of placers as it is in lode locations. The supreme court of California at one time expressed the view that neither the federal laws nor the local rules and customs of miners required that a discovery should be made as a prerequisite to a placer location, but this is obviously a mere dictum; it is also opposed to the current of judicial authority. The land department has uniformly held that discovery is essential in the case of placers, going so far at one time as to hold that such discovery was essential in each twenty-acre tract within a location of one hundred and sixty acres located by an association of persons. In the case of petroleum deposits the courts in California have in recent years been confronted with some serious problems upon the subject of what constitutes a sufficient discovery which will sanction a location of Ante, § 330. 4 Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Miller, 97 Fed. 681, 688; Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 673; Olive L. and D. Co. v. Olmstead, 103 Fed. 568, 573; Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Co., 112 Fed. 4, 14. 5 Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109, 117, 14 Pac. 401. a claim to oil lands under the laws applicable to placers. It is well known that the natural habitat of this class of mineral hydrocarbons is in stratified rocks some distance below the surface, and except for the occasional appearance at the surface in the form of oil seepages, springs, or other indications of the subterranean exist ence of petroleum, there is nothing to guide the miner in making his location. It requires more or less extensive development in the nature of well-boring and prospecting to determine the nature, extent, and permanency of the deposit. With reference to these surface indications, Judge Ross, United States circuit judge for the southern district of California, expressed the view that 66 "Mere indications, however strong, are not, in my opinion, sufficient to answer the requirements of the statute, which requires, as one of the essential condi"tions to the making of a valid location of unappropri"ated public land of the United States under the "mining laws, of mineral within the limits of the claim. . . . Indications of the existence of a thing is not "the thing itself."'1 This was said, however, not of indications existing within the boundaries of the claim in controversy, but in adjoining lands. 66 "So, in respect to placer claims," Judge Ross says, "if a competent locator actually finds upon unappropriated public land petroleum or other min"eral in or upon the ground, and so situated as to con"stitute a part of it, it is a sufficient discovery within "the meaning of the statute, to justify a location under "the law, without waiting to ascertain by exploration "whether the ground contains the mineral in sufficient quantities to pay." 2 Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 673, 676. See, also, Tulare Oil and M. Co. v. S. P. R. R., 29 L. D. 269. Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 673, 676. This is in consonance with the rule announced by the courts in the case of lodes, that neither the size nor richness of the vein is material, so long as there is a genuine discovery. A discovery of such indications as would in a given district lead a miner to the more valuable deposit, according to the experience in that district would sanction a mining location.2 Of course, exploitation on adjacent lands might raise a strong presumption that a given tract contained petroleum. An oil-producing well within each of four sections of land surrounding a fifth would produce a conviction that the oil deposit was underneath the fifth section. This fact might justify the land department in classifying the section in the category of mineral lands, or the government surveyor in returning it as such, but it would not dispense with the necessity of making a discovery.1 It is impossible to lay down any arbitrary rule to govern all cases as to what may be a sufficient discovery upon which to predicate a location. It is a question of fact, to be determined from a consideration of all the circumstances and surroundings." 2 438. Unit of placer locations-Discovery in each twenty acre tract.-We have heretofore observed that the unit of lode locations is a surface area aggregating a fraction over twenty acres, and that it is immaterial how many or how few locators participate in that class of locations. We shall see in a succeeding article that the rule in regard to placers is somewhat different. In placers, the 'Ante, § 336. Shoshone M. Co. v. Rutter, 87 Fed. 801. State of Washington v. McBride, 25 L. D. 169, 181. 'Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409. Ante, § 336. Ante, § 361. |