The weekly Arizona miner., 1868-10-31
Glle '% 9A(iner.
Respective Rights of Miners and Far
 mers to Public Lands.

information for miners and farmers, and "cov- CTS the ground in Arizona as well as in California:
 DEPARTMENT OF TIE INTERIOR,
 General Laad Otic,, Sept 15, ls6S. George Stonehouse, Grass Valley, Nevada County, California.
 Sir-Nour letter to Senator Cole has been referred to this office, containing your re- maks about the effect of our mineral in- structionsn upon those connected with agri- cultural interests in California.
 The miners and farmers are SO mutually dependent upon each other in California that considerations of interest alone should be sufficient to prevent any rivalry beyond that incident to the advancement of their respect i've interests Without the miners the far mers of California would have but an inditfer ent market for their produce, and, in the absence of the agricultural element, the nec essaries of life could be obtained only at eX- orbtant prices, impalring the welfare, not of the miners only. but of all classes Hence, a community of interest should create com mupity of feeling, and all should alike strive to promote the lasting prosperity, the real glory of your truly wonderful State The true policy of the United States is, as you re- mark, to sell all its public lands, farming and mineral and that is precisely what the Gov ernment Is endeayOring Co do through this office.
 It has two classes of land. one agricultural, to be disposed of at the legal minimum price per acre. under the pre-emption, or for mainly a lqJor consideration under the Homestead Law; the others at S per acre under the Mining Statute; and it IS disposed of as rap idly as circumstances will allow.
 You speak of the hardship of permitting miners to go upon land which agricultural settlers have bought, and dig up their orchards, gardens and grass lands, and rob them of their titles. You do not state upon what class of lands such trtspasses have been committed; whether upon mineral or farming lands; whether upon lands sub ject to settlement under the preempton or homestead laws, or upon those subject to oc- cupation only as mining lands.
 If the land was bought from the United States. it Is sufficient to say that no one, whether miner or another person, has right to trespass upon it in that or any other way nor can settler be robbed of any title he has obtained from the United States. You probably have reference to the purchase of the yosssssoIy claim of a prior settler upoT unsuryeyed land but, even then, the fact o having orchards on it as agricultural would seem to imply that the settlement must have existed July %. 1866, when tn, Mining Law was passed. and in that case would be protected under the 10th section o that act, if the land is really agricultural ana more valuable for farming than for mining purposes and no miner could legally disturl the settler in his possession.
 The question to be determined is whethe the land Is most valuable for mining or fol farming purposes. If the former, it belong 10 the class called "MineraI Lands,r and i not subject to settlement as agricultural and it would not be in the power of this of fee to protect such a settler on ii, for tn reason that his settlement would not hav the sanction of any statute. A settlement il California upon sprreyed land, more valuable for farming than for mining, is good unde the llth section of the Mining Act. and tn settler may complete bis title either unde the preemption or the homestead laws.
 A settlement upon unsuryeyed agricUitUrG lands, made before July 26, 1866, is protecte' by the 10th section of the Mining Act, an' the rights of the settler must be respected When question arises between a settler am miner us to whether particular tract c land is more valuable for farming or for mi ming the farmer necessarily has the advan tage of the miner in this, that before the lat ter can interfere with him, he must prove th land to be more valuable for mining than fo farming, a matter frequently impossible with out expensive excavations, whilst, on tn other hand, the farming qualities of the Ian are found upon the surfaee, and are easily e tahlished
 The proof of mineral wealth can usually | furnished only at the expense of removing th surface, and if miner does not wish to inct this expense, the agricultural settler cannC legally be disturbed, if he took the precal ton not to make q settlement upon land pa pably of mineral character even from surfaC indications.
 The miners testimony, also, must apply { every 40 acre tract and if he fails as to an one of the four quarter sections which se tier may take under the preemption or home stead laws, the rights of the settler as to ths remains untouched.
 It is believed, therefore, that if these SC tiers are careful, and select only such lant in the mineral regions as are by law subjeC to settlement for agricultural purposes, the rights cannot be seriously impAred. At a events, having the law on their side, the will be in condition to enforce respect them, and in all such cases may rely conf dently upon whatever assistance it Is in th power of this office to render them.
 Nearly or quite all the difficulties that o cur in these respects come from a want compliance with the requirements of the law through want Of attention, or . misconcei tion as to the importance of looking well [ these things before 1t is too late to correo the error without serious loss.
 settler may venture to make settlemen upon tract of land, without any very def nite intention of becoming permanently locs