The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1878-03-29


houses, buildings and structures, lots
blocks, streets, alleys Or other municipa
Improvements on the surface of the above
described premises, not belonging to tn
grantees herein, and all rights necessary
or proper to the occupation, possession ant
: enjoyment of the same" By this exeep
tion the surface in the actual possession
and occupation of the mine owner, or GOV
cred by his improvements, is as distinctl,
assured and conveyed to him, as is tina
surface to which town property rights
have attached, or on which improvement
by other parties have been placed, excepted
from his patent. l regard these correlatlvs
exceptions, inserted in the town-site and
mineral patents, as securing the objects
contemplated in the town-site and minera
laws. They assure to all parties just
what, under the law, they are respectively
entitled to claim. To grant to the miner
the entire surface ground along the whole
line of the lode, with width of one hun.
dred feet, without regard to the acquired
surface rights of others, would compel me
to ignore the principle announced in said
decision of the Hon. Secretary, as well as
to do violence to my own judgment of the
proper construction of the two laws under
confederation. They must be so construed
that both may stand. Under the system
established as aforesaid, Of inserting said
exceptions in the patents to towns and
mime owners, there are no occupants i'm
Genital City presenting their claims ad-
versely in the manner provided in the mi
ming statutes, and for the reason that, by
said exceptions, the rights of all parties
| are respected, and so defined that they are
easily susceptible of definite ascertain
ment. To except from the town patent
definite surveys of mineral claims, initia-
ted or extended after surface occupation
| by other parties, would obviously be ig-
| noring to an 1njustifable extent adverse
| rights which have not been presented for
adjustment by the courts, prior TO the min
eral entry simply for the reason that
under the practice of this Office, indicated
by said exceptions, it was wholly unneces-
| sary. This non action was based on the
practice of this Office, on which they bad
the right to rely, and no power to control,
and this practice itself was based on the
reasonable ana essentially necessary con-
struction Of the town-site and mineral
laws, whereby both might be executed
and claimants under them secured in such
rights as they had respectively acquired.
1t should also be remembered, in this con-
neetion, that the government does not act
upon the individual claims of town oeeu-
pants, but does adjust and patent mineral
claims directly TO the mine owners. !
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 |
discovered, throag bout it's entire length, |
with width of ono hundred feet, surface |
ground included, be excepted from the
town patent.
Where and when will these mines be
discovered aud opened? What and whose
property will they then embrace and
practically confscate? What foot of sur
face ground will ever be held by town
occupant 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 signi6-
cance were the present claim conceded.
The town Of Central City was incorpora-
ted in 1854. The first patents were issued
to mine owners in 1869. Precisely aehss
mining claims attached to any particular
piece of ground cannot determine. Pre-
cisely aohess legal surface claim by town
attached to any particular lot /
have no means of aseertainlng. How, then,
with Difference to thsoe 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, ofitself, 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
have relied, and that the excep-
lion in the town-site patent is as broad ais
;he law suggests, and almost in It's exact
language, render it improper for me to grant
ihe present claim.
The mine owner is protected by the local
'ules and customs, and these are recognized
~ the United States. The town patent is
Executed to atrustee, who is controlled by
he Legislature of the State or Territory.
Fhe local courts are open for those partica-
ar adjustments, which this Office can not
each and conclude that the present de-
nand is entirely outside what, in the prop
r execution Of said laws, can be legiti- s
nately elaimec or conceded. I therefore q
lecline to grant the application, and ia ]
to the views herein sec forth, |
lereby revoke my letters to the Register
md Receiver, of August 26, ia, and to John
Dix, Esq, of April "a, 1876, so far as they
onfiict with this decision, and decline to
xcept by name and survey aay mine what
,ver in said town.
Duly notify all parties in interest hereof,
llow sixty days for appeal, and thereafter
promptly report to this office. &
s. s. BURDEFT. La
Commissioner. | 4
A VIRGINIA CoURT SCENE.-Miss Emma
davenport, an attaetive Young Virginia !.
ady, was recently tried in the United
'tates Court at Richmond. She was charged
With abstracting valuable silk dress and n
wo valuable packages of jewelry from the I
nail srhifA acting "a Deputy Postmaster 4