Arizona citizen., 1879-09-27
Mlninq pec,s,ons bn Secrstnru .s.bn,z

Mining Dec'siOns by Secretary Schgrz.
 Ia the case of the Adelside Consoli- dated Silver Mining and Smelting Company vs Gallagher and others the defendants made application for a patent for the Camp Bird mininc claim, in the California District, Col orsco. The claim is parallrlogram l500 feet in length by 300 feet in width. The survey Or tle lode in he claim crosses the Adelaide Lode" al nearly right angles and he amount of surface ground contained within tbe Adeiaide claim at the point of inter section k 2gI2 acres. Tie preliminary proceedings were in strict conformity with the requirements of the mining law. and no adverse Clain was filed or suit commenced during the nerioJ of publication. The Galia.hc-s after. wards made Cafry of G.O5 acrrs of surface ground of said mining claim being The exact amount of land con. talned ln the survey thereof arter df ducIing ihe surface ~rouud contained m the Adelaide claim at tle poipt of intersection. This amount of hand appeared in the published notice of the application for patent. The Adelaide Company, however, fled q protest in the Land Onfcr. claimlug that by the description in the official survey II would appear that the Camp BlrG Company intended 10 take the land at the point of intersection of the two claims, and among other things asked that d clause bc inserted in inc patent issued on the Camp Bird claim excepting and excluding the area iD conflict with the Adelaide claim. The Camp Bird Company disclaimcd any Interference with the surface of the Adelaide claim. and admitted tLe pri ori,y thereof, but claimed that such a reservation in the patent would be un- usual.
 The Land Office. however. decided Co approve the Camp Bird application and Co s Ge a patent thereon with au excepting clause, which excepted and excluded from "tlIis couycyaucc all surface ground contained in the Adc- laIdt location, as shown by the tore going description, together with all veins, lodes ami lelges lying and heinz therein, 10 which the said Adelaide mining claim k entitled by reason Of is said location" Both parties ap- pe.led from tais decision.
 Secretary Schurz, in his decision. among other things, sav-; The only law relating 10 cross l0dc- is found in section 2335 of the Revised Statutes, and Is in these words: Where two or more vein, iutersect or cross each other priority of title shall govern. and such prior location shall he en- titled Go ail ore or mineral contained within tAc space Of iuier-Cr-i.n. but ,he subsequent location shall have lhe right of way through the spice of in tersvCiiOn for the purposes of the con- ycnient working of the mine. 4ui where two or more veins unite The old eH or prior location shall take the vein below the point of union in- Ciuding all the space of intersection.
 |" Under this statute the right uf shc parties are made Co dcurui !. ou tbe fact of actual intersection 0, tlg veins and priority of lOraiian; matters which it i> the peculiar province ui the judicial tribunals Go determine. gel, ia cases where miuiuE locations cross each other, and there is reason io believe that a contest may arise iu fu- tuge. the rights of neither ol jhe par -ies n interest should be p-eiudiccd prior 70 judicial discrimination thereof. by t. e insertion of uuueCrs- sary haheuG, m or redJeudum clauses iA thc patent.
 In this case the Camp Bird Com pany has not entered, and is not ask ing tor a patent for the surface ground embraced in the Adelaide calm at the point of intersection of the two claims, vet ifs vein may extend through the ground belonging Co the Adelaide and sill n0l iu.er-rri with the Adelaide ve n. Tn that event q e right of the Camp Bird owners Co pursue said vein through the ground of the Adelaide al the point Of intersection of the two claim, is vested by law, and ought not Go le limited by the patent; while, ou the other hand, the right of the own CTS of The Adelaide Co pursue their vein i, equally well protected by the statute. and should not he prciudiccd by the grant to. the Camp Bird Com uanv. Under the circumstances Ot iAe ease. the only way ty which the interests of both parties can he fully protected i- hs making thc excepting clause in favor of the Adelaide Com p8uy a- broad as the granting Clau-e to inc Camp Bird Company for. by su doing. both will receive all that the law give them, and neither will have any legal adcau'agc.'
 In ihr case of the Iowa Mining Com rauv y~. Bonanza Mining Company, on appeal from ,he Land Office, Secrc tarv SchUrz held
 I. \ failure on the part of am ac- verse claimant tu prosecute his suit Co judamout with reasonable diligence shall Toe a waiver ot hi- claim
 "1he question of diligence in the prosecuting of a pending suit is as much a question for the determination of the court a- any other question ot law or fact which may arise in the progress of the ease. and one which alter the court has acquired iuTi~dia ton. should lc lcft tor is determine tion.'
 TIE mines on the cast of 'he Hua- chuca Mountains are looking very promising.
 The Fever RecOro.
 F. ....f -.-..-