Slike strani
PDF
ePub

unit of the location is twenty acres to each individual, with a maximum of one hundred and sixty acres to an association of persons. In other words, unless limited by local rules, and assuming that local regulations may prescribe such a limitation,1 a single individual may locate a twenty-acre tract, but no more. Where more than one person (not exceeding eight) participate, an area equivalent to twenty acres to each is permitted; but they locate the whole area jointly, becoming tenants in common thereof, and are not, according to the practice, required to each locate a particular specified twenty-acre tract. Such being the case, the question has arisen as to whether one discovery within the limits of the entire area appropriated by an association of persons would be sufficient upon which to base a location as to such area, or whether a discovery is necessary upon each twenty-acre tract or unit of location. In case of lode locations, where an appropriation in excess of the statutory limit of a single location is desired, a separate discovery and separate location are necessary.2

[ocr errors]

In applying the law to this class of cases, the land department now follows the rule that only one discovery is required where a location is made by an association of persons; this, however, has not always been the ruling of the department in such cases, but it is now the settled law, so far as the department is concerned, and there is little reason to apprehend any change.

1

The supreme court of Montana was committed to this

1 Copp's Min. Dec. 164.

Ante, § 361.

Union Oil Co., on review, 25 L. D. 351, 358; Ferrell v. Hoge, 27 L. D. 129; Reins v. Raunheim, 28 L. D. 526; Ferrell v. Hoge, 29 L. D. 12. See Lincoln Placer, 7 L. D. 81.

Ferrell v. Hoge, 18 L. D. 81; S. P. R. R. Co. v. Griffin, 20 L. D. 485; Rhodes v. Treaz, 21 L. D. 502; Louise M. Co., 22 L. D. 663; Union Oil Co., 23 L. D. 222. See Ferrell v. Hoge, on review, 19 L. D. 568.

view even before the land department reversed its older rulings.1

However erroneous the earlier view taken by the land department may have been,-i. e. that a discovery must be made on each twenty acres,-the requirement was effective in the way of satisfying the department of the mineral character of the entire tract. There is no legal inference because a given twenty-acre tract within an area of one hundred and sixty acres is mineral in character that the adjoining tracts or others are of the same character.2

In regard to this point, the department holds that one discovery is a sufficient prima facie showing of the character of the entire tract, but it is not conclusive, and the character of the remainder of the tract may be investigated. The wisdom of this rule is peculiarly manifest when we consider the difficulties which would otherwise be found in the locating of deep placers and petroleum lands.*

While the land department must be satisfied of the mineral character of the entire tract, it must be noted in this connection that the character of the deposit if not in place may be different in different parts of the claimed area, provided that the several deposits fall within the definition of those valuable and "not in "place."

It has been claimed where there is a valid discovery within a one-hundred-and-sixty-acre tract taken by an

'McDonald v. Montana Wood Co., 14 Mont. 88, 43 Am. St. Rep. 616, 35 Pac. 668.

'Dughi v. Harkins, 2 L. D. 721, quoted in Davis v. Weibbold, 139 U. S. 507, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 628, and in United States v. Cent. Pac. R. R. Co., 93 Fed. 871.

Ferrell v. Hoge, 29 L. D. 12, S. C. 27 L. D. 129. And see State of Washington v. McBride, 25 L. D. 167, 182.

* See Louise M. Co., 22 L. D. 663, and Tulare Oil and M. Co. v. S. P. R. R. Co., 29 L. D. 269.

Ferrell v. Hoge, 29 L. D. 12.

association of persons, that this discovery would be sufficient to hold the entire area irrespective of the character of the land elsewhere therein, upon the theory applied in cases of lode claims, that surface ground is given for the convenient working of the claim. The department held this not to be the correct rule. Ground selected as placer must be mineral land, non-mineral surface not being permitted as an incident to a placer claim.1

ARTICLE IV. STATE LEGISLATION AS TO POSTING NOTICES AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT WORK.

§ 442. State statutes requiring | § 443. Preliminary development posting of notices on work required by state placers. laws upon placer locations.

8442. State statutes requiring posting of notices on placers.-The general observations upon the subject of posting notices following lode discoveries, found in a preceding section,2 apply with equal force to all classes of locations upon the public mineral lands. With the exception of the common custom generally observed, as there indicated, the posting of a notice is the subject of state or local regulation, in the absence of which none is required.

Some of the states have enacted laws upon the subject with regard to placers, a brief epitome of which will not be out of place:

Arizona.-Same as lode claims, except that the notice must contain the number of acres claimed instead of the requirements of subdivisions four and five of the section concerning contents of notice on lode claims.3

'Ferrell v. Hoge, 29 L. D. 12.

Ante, § 350.

Rev. Stats. (1901), §§ 3232, 3242. Ante, § 353.

Colorado.-Before recording (thirty days from discovery) the discoverer must post upon the claim a notice containing: (1) The name of the claim; (2) The name of the locator; (3) Date of discovery; and (4) Number of feet or acres claimed.1

Idaho.-Requirements are practically the same as in lode claims.2

Montana.-The same as in lode claims, except that the number of feet or acres claimed, instead of the length of the lode, must be designated in the notice.3

Nevada.-Same as Colorado.1

New Mexico, South Dakota, Oregon, and North Dakota.-If any notice is required to be posted, it is the same as in the case of lode claims. Placers are not specially named in their laws upon the subject of posting notices, and it is doubtful if they were intended to apply to placer locations.

Utah.-Same as lode claims, except that the notice should state the number of acres or superficial feet claimed, instead of the length and course of the vein, and the width on either side thereof."

Washington.-The notice must contain (a) the name of the claim; (b) name of location; (c) date of discovery and posting of notice, which shall be considered as the date of the location; (d) a description of the claim by reference to legal subdivisions of sections, if the location is made in conformity with the public surveys; otherwise, a description with reference to some natural 'Mills' Annot. Stats., § 3136.

Laws of 1895, p. 25, §§ 2, 12, as amended-Laws of 1897, p. 12; Civ. Code (1901), § 2563. Ante, § 354.

3 Rev. Code of 1895, § 3610. Ante, § 352.

4 Comp. Laws (1900), § 220.

Ante, § 353.

Laws of 1899, p. 69, § 2. Ante, § 380.

Lindley on M.-50

object or permanent monument as will identify the claim.1

Wyoming.-Provisions are the same as in Colorado.2

2 443. Preliminary development work required by state laws upon placer locations.-When speaking of the requirement of preliminary development work with respect to lode locations, we expressed the view that the object was twofold:

(1) To determine the lode character of the deposit; (2) To compel the discoverer to manifest his intention to claim the ground in good faith under the mining laws.3

It is quite obvious that both of these reasons cannot be offered in support of similar requirements in cases of placers, although the latter applies with equal force to them. Only four of the states, however, have attempted any legislation on this subject with respect to placers.

In Idaho it is provided that within fifteen days after making the location, the locator must make an excavation on the claim of not less than one hundred cubic feet, for the purpose of prospecting the same.

5

In Montana the equivalent of the work done upon lode claims must be done upon placers.

6

Nevada requires that within ninety days after posting the notice of location the locator shall perform not less than twenty dollars' worth of labor upon the claim for the development thereof.

'Laws of 1899, p. 71, as amended-Laws of 1901, p. 292.

*Laws of 1888, pp. 89-90, § 22; Rev. Stats. (1899), § 2553, as amended -Laws of 1901, p. 104.

Ante, § 344.

'Laws of 1895, p. 25, § xii, as amended-Laws of 1897, p. 12; Civil Code (1901), § 2563.

Rev. Code, 1895, § 3611. See Purdum v. Laddin, 59 Pac. 153.

Comp. Laws (1900), § 221.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »