The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-12-28
THE .GRAy EAGLE" CLAIM.
More Valuable for Mineral Water Than
Precious Metals.


The decision of the local United States land
Office in the Benjamin G. Morrill, vs. the Mar
garet Mining Company controversy, which was
taken on appeal to the interior department, has
been modified by the higher authorities. The
Seattle Office yesterday received the decision OF
George w. Chandler assistant commissioner, on
the subject. The suit is as important as it is
interesting, aud seriously involves the Gray
Eagle lode, in King county. on Green river, re-
garding which the local Office found it to be
"most valuable for its hot springs thereon, and
therefore subject to sale under the general laws
and not under acts relating to the sale OF min
eral lands.
Following are the comments and decision of
Mr.. Chandler N his letter to the commissioner OF
the general Office and received yesterday by the
Seattle office
..I have considered the case of Benjamin G..
Morrill, VS.. the Margaret Mining Company, on
appeal by both parties from your ofiiee decision
OF May %, 1889, finding that the land in contIo-
versy. being unsurveyed pubic lands in Seattle
land district, King county, Washington, has no
value for either mining or agricultural pur-
poses.
"The record shows that ON the 10Th day of
August, 1856, the Margaret Mining Company
fled in the local Office its application TO pur-
chase the Gray Eagle mining claim, being sur
yey No. S. situated in King county, Washing
ton territory, on unsuryeyed public land
"on May Il, 1885, and afterwards on June %, 1856,
Benjamin G. Morrill, filed in the local Office his
protest against the allowance of q mineral entry
Tor said land by the Margaret Mining Company
or any one else. alleging his settlement upon and
improvement of a claim on unsurveyed lands in
March, 1885. That subsequently, q mining conf
pany located a mineral claim embracing the
same lands, called the Gray Eagle. That the
object and purpose of said mining company is to
obtain title to some hot springs. That there is
no valuable mine on the claim, and they make
no pretensions to one outside of obtaining
patent to sulphur springs. He further alleges
that he was an occupant OF the land Ill question
before any parties interested in the said mining
company. That he has erected buildings on the
claim and that 1t has been his home for the past
eighteen months.
was ordered by the local officers to determine
the character OF the Gray Eagle Mining claim.
In pursuance thereof the testimony was in part
taken before notary public in King county,
Washington territory, partly in the form OF de-
positions and the remainder before the local
officers.
From the evidence introduced in the case the
local officers, ON the 7th day OF November, 1857,
refused the application OF the Margaret Mining
Company, from which the company appealed to
your office, which on the 10th day of MAY, 1859,
found that said claim has not been proven to be
OF any value for mining purposes neither is it of
any value for agricultural purposes 1t was
held to be most valuable lot IFS hot springs
general laws and not under the acts relating to
the sale OF mineral lands.
"From your decision both parties appeal.
sit appears from the evidence that prior to
the Organization of said Margaret Mining Com
pany, said Benjamin g. Morrill, made settle
ment upon and was improving claim upon UNI
surveyed public land. That after the organiza-
ton OF the mining company it located the Gray
Eagle lode mining claim upon land embraced
in Morrills claim. In the boundaries of said
mining claim, there Is what the witnesses de-
nominate as the hot springs of Green river, tho
waters of said springs are supposed to contain
valuable medicinal qualities.
"Ihe value of said springs is not shown by the
evidence in this case but Morrill, and said Min
ing company seem to value them highly. In
fact, the acquisition OF said springs seems to
OF the organization of said company, and the To-
cation of said mining claim. Morrill, was elected
from the land BY an officer under some sort of
proceedings had before a court at the trial be-
fore which he swears he made no appearance,
since which time he has been out of the posses
sion. morrill, S improvements consisted chiefly
in buildings near said hot springs erected for
the accommodation OF guests and people visiting
said springs for their health, and the breaking
and clearing CT about an acre of ground which
he planted TO garden vegetables and potatoes.
'sThe claim crosses Green river, and is shown
TO be generally covered with timber and brush.
1t is shown to be broken and rocky generally,
yet there Is portion OF itthat can be cultivated
successfully, and has some value as agricultural
lands Morrills Improvements are shown to
have been worth from $500 to sI,ooe
..As to the mineral character OF the land en-
braeed in the Gray Eagle claim, the evidence
fails to satisfactorily show that mineral in pay
ing quantities exists, or has been found ON said
claim.
sit appears that very little effort has been
made by the mining company TO develop the
mineral resources of the claim, the mineral
claimants having turned their attention to the
mineral springs, which appear to be their sole
incentive for acquiring title TO the land. The
sole issue presented for determination was the
right of the mineral applicants to purchase the
land, and nasmuch as the land is not shown to
be mineral in character, your Office decision in
rejecting their application to purchase was right,
and TO that extent is hereby affirmed. The
rights of Morrill, in the tract can properly be
when he makes application therefor
under the law. Your decision is accordingly