The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1876-03-24

would obviously be ignoring to an unjusti
fable extent, adverse rights which have moi
been presented for adjustment, by the
courts, prior to the mineral entry, Simply
for the reason that under the practice Of
this office. indicated by said exceptions, il
was wholly unnecessary. This non action
was based on the practice of, this Office, on
which they had the right to rely, and nc
power to control, and this practice itself
was based ON the reasonable and essentially
necessary construction of the town-site and
mineral laws, whereby both might be execu-
ted and claimants under them secured in
such rights, as they had respectively acquir-
ed. 1t should also be remembered, in this
connection, that the government does not
act upon the individual claims of town oc-
cupants, but does adjust and patent mineral
| claims directly to the mine owners. 9d i3-V
The request of the mineral claimants,
however, as presented in their protest and
claim now under consideration, constitutes
proposition never hitherto before this
office for decision. 1t is in brief, that every
mine discovered or hereafter to be discov-
cred, throughout its entire length, with a
width of one hundred feet, surface ground
included, be excepted from the town pat
ent. sss# yEs fa.sE-sI5susaf4 rHIHft
Where and when will these mines be dis
covered and opened? What and whose
property will they then embrace and prac-
tically confiscate? What foot of surface
ground will ever be held by a town occu-
pant under a clear title where the same is
not purchased from mine owner? Was
the mineral law designed by Congress as a
repeal of the town-site statutes? These
points would assume vital significance We're
the present claim conceded. s.,,s .r. A..
Tho nf T;%x,
ated in 1864. The first patents were issued
to mine owners in 1862 Precisely aolte1s
mining claims attached to any particular
piece of ground l cannot determine. Pre-
cisely aohen legal surface claim by town
occupant attached to any particular lot I
have no means of ascertaining. How, then,
with Difference to those laws under which
these claims have attached, can | defer the
one absolutely to the other?
The necessity of SO constituting both laws
as not to defeat either; that respect for
rights under each, which, of itself, it seems,
must control my action the fact that the
exceptions in mineral patents secure a
shield of protection to town occupants and
mineral claimants alike, and on which town
occupants have relied, and that the excep-
tion in the town-site patent is as broad as
the law suggests and almost in it's exact
language, render it improper for be to grant
the present claim.
The mine owner is protected by the local
rules and customs, and these are recognized
by the United States. fhe town patent is
executed to trustee, who is controlled by
the Legislature of the State or Territory.
The local courts are open for those particu-
lar adjustments, which this Office can not
reach; and conclude that the present de-
aand is aJ,tiraIy outcide What in the prorl-
er execution of said laws, can be legiti-
mately claimed or conceded. I therefore
decline to grant the application; and i'll
conformity to the views herein set forth,
hereby revoke my letters to the Register
and Receiver, Of August 26, "a, and to John
Dix, Esq, of April "a, 1875, so far as they
conflict with this decision, and decline to
except by name and survey any mine what
ever in said town. Hasifsat
Dulysnotify all parties in interest hereof,
allow sixty days for appeal, and thereafter
promptly report to this office. .....
H-fF "&" S. S. BURDETT,
ID