Slike strani
PDF
ePub

so locate his claim across prior locations and patented surfaces as to divide the lode claim into non-contiguous tracts, the application of a similar doctrine in a modified form to placer claims was not unexpected. The practice now sanctioned by the department may be briefly summarized: A placer locator may locate a given subdivision of the public surveys not exceeding the statutory limit of twenty acres, and an association may locate not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, and the location may properly describe the land located by the proper legal subdivision, although the tract so located may embrace within its exterior limits prior segregated and patented lode claims, thus dividing the placer claim into non-contiguous tracts. The patent when issued will describe the land by proper legal subdivisions, excepting, however, the tracts which have been previously segregated. In other words, the government may grant to the placer claimant the particular subdivision less what it has heretofore conveyed to others.1

A contrary rule had previously been announced in the case of the Grassey Gulch placer.2

The decision in this case was, however, recalled by the secretary, and is no longer a precedent.

It had also at one time been held that the segregation of lode claims within a given subdivision of the public surveys would result in leaving certain fractional areas, which were subsequently designated by lot numbers, and that the placer claimant was compelled to have these irregular fractions surveyed for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity, and enter them as separate tracts,3 but this ruling subsequently was abrogated, and the practice heretofore noted of applying for the original

1 In re Mary Darling, 31 L. D. 64. 30 L. D. 191.

In re Knight, 30 L. D. 227.

government subdivision less the area covered by prior segregated areas was sanctioned.

So far as the courts are concerned, the question has not been definitely determined, but the application of the principles applied by them to lode claims is not accompanied with any serious difficulty.1

% 449. Placer locations by corporations.-As heretofore noted, the supreme court of the United States has determined that a domestic corporation formed under the laws of a state may locate public mineral lands, but intimates that there may be some question raised as to the extent of a claim which a corporation may be permitted to locate as an original discoverer, suggesting that it might perhaps be treated as one person and entitled to locate only to the extent permitted a single individual.3

4

The placer law quoted in a preceding section * permits an "association of persons" to locate not to exceed one hundred and sixty acres. A corporation is an association of persons; at the same time we must admit that it is but an artificial individual. We have intimated in a previous section that if such a corporation had a constituency of eight stockholders it might be permitted to appropriate one hundred and sixty acres of land by location. We are not aware that the question has ever been judicially determined. Looking at the object of the statute in permitting consolidation of interests for purposes of development and operation, so clearly outlined by the supreme court of the United States in St. Louis Smelting Company v. Kemp, we cannot say that

See Crown Point M. Co. v. Buck, 97 Fed. 463, 465, and the discussion in sections 363, 363a.

Ante, § 226.

McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630, 636, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638.
Ante, § 448.

104 U. S. 636.

by the use of the term "association of persons" congress meant to exclude corporations from the designation. As eight individuals might locate and unite their interests in an incorporated company without violating the spirit of the law, it is not unreasonable to suggest, that a corporation composed of the eight may accomplish the same purpose by locating one hundred and sixty acres. Our suggestion is based upon the language of the statute. In the absence of any such provision granting privileges to an association of persons, undoubtedly a corporation would simply occupy the status of an individual. The question is not by any means easy of solution. It has not been judicially answered.

% 450. Locations by several persons in the interest of one Number of locations by an individual. -It is a matter of frequent occurrence that an individual locator, desiring to obtain more ground than he is permitted under the law to appropriate in his individual capacity by a single location, resorts to the use of "dummies," and perfects locations in their names, subsequently obtaining conveyances thereof. The courts have held that this is a fraud upon the government.1

"The policy of the government in disposing of the "mineral lands as well as other portions of the public "domain is to make a general distribution among as "large a number as possible of those who wish to ac

[ocr errors]

quire such land for their own use rather than to favor "a few individuals who might wish to acquire princely "fortunes by securing large tracts of such lands, and "it is contrary to this policy and to the provisions of "sections twenty-three hundred and thirty and twenty"three hundred and thirty-one of the Revised Statutes "for one person to cover more than twenty acres of placer ground by one location by the device of us

[ocr errors]

1 Mitchell v. Cline, 84 Cal. 409, 24 Pac. 164; Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. 535.

"ing the name of his employees and friends as lo"cators."'1

But the same object can be accomplished without violating the law. There is nothing to prevent a miner from locating, by separate location, as many twenty-acre tracts as he pleases, either contiguous or non-contiguous.2 The right to locate and develop mining ground is not exhausted by a single location, as in the case of pre-emption and homestead entries. If he can discover mineral within the eight twenty-acre subdivisions of a quarter-section of land, and is willing to develop them to the extent required by law as a condition precedent to the acquisition of title by patent, or to annually perform labor to the extent required by law upon or for the benefit of each, he is clearly entitled to do so. The statute simply inhibits the acquisition by an individual of more than twenty acres by a single location. The question of good faith, however, may be the subject of inquiry by the government, who alone may complain. During the period when rights were governed exclusively by local rules, in certain districts the number of claims which one might locate and hold at one time within that particular district were defined. But there is no trace of this found in the legislation of congress. An attempt was made to incorporate into the Alaska

'Durant v. Corbin, 94 Fed. 382.

The

'Lands containing salt deposits are an exception to this rule. statute authorizing the location of this class of claims prevents the location of more than one claim by the same person. Post, § 514a.

We quote the following letter from Hon. Binger Hermann, commissioner of the general land office, under date March 16, 1901, appearing in the "Mining and Scientific Press," vol. 83, p. 157:

"Relative to the legality of eight persons giving power of attorney "to locate placer claims without number, thereby enabling a few persons "to hold large areas of the public domain, it is well recognized that "under existing mining laws claims may be located by agent; that one "person may locate a claim not exceeding twenty acres, or eight persons "may associate themselves in the location of one claim not to exceed one "hundred and sixty acres. There is no limit to the number of claims "that any person or association of persons may locate."

codes a limitation upon the number of claims an individual or an association might locate in a given district in Alaska, but the attempt was unsuccessful. As heretofore observed with reference to the Philippines,1 there is a limitation with regard to lode or vein claims.2

66

The amended rules and regulations adopted by the miners at Cape Nome, in June, 1901, provide that "Not more than one placer claim can be located in said "district in the name of the same person on the same "stream, creek, or gulch."

Regulations of this character are of doubtful validity. It may also be suggested that, even if valid and binding on the government, no one but the United States could complain, following the analogy of locations made by aliens.

ARTICLE VI. THE MARKING OF THE LOCATION ON THE GROUND.

454. Rule as to marking bounda

ries of placer claims in ab-
sence of state legislation.

§ 455. State legislation as to marking boundaries of placer claims.

454. Rule as to marking boundaries of placer claims in absence of state legislation.-We have explained in a previous section the necessity for, and object of, marking lode locations upon the ground.3 While the surface boundaries of a placer claim do not perform all the functions of end- and side-lines of lode locations, nevertheless the marking of a placer location on the ground is just as essential as in the case of lodes.

[blocks in formation]

The state of Oregon has enacted a law limiting the discoverer of a vein to two claims, all others to one claim, on the same vein, (Hill's Annot. Laws of Oregon (1892), § 3829,) which provision is amenable

to the same criticism.

Ante, § 371.

Lindley on M.-51

« PrejšnjaNaprej »