The record-union., 1891-03-03
FALSE GUIDANCE FOR MINERS
Alleged Errors in the State NIinera1o
giSt'S Report.

S1SUsS RcpOrt.
/ EDS. RECORD UNION: The report of
the State Mineralogist, recently issued,
| contains no doubt much interesting mat
| ter as to mineralogy, but in that chapter
of the report dealing with mining laws,
there are some Of the worst errors i'm
| aginable. AS this chapter is evidently in
| tended for the guidance of prospectors
| and mine owners, it is a great hardship
that they should be misled by the reck-
| less statements of volume issued Off
| cially by the State of California, Let
| me notice few of these errors:
Page SS7 of the report says: "The
United States laws do not require annual
expenditure upon placer clailns.n This
is error. Every intelligent miner and
lawyer knows, that the courts hold that.
the United States laws do require annual
| expenditure upon placer claims. [See
| Carney VS.. Arizona Mig. Co., Vol. 65,
Gaia Reports, page 40l.
The report, pages $3.50, says: IAN
| other proSpector may discover q new lode
within the boundaries of a located claim,
and hold the same, and with it twenty
| five feet of ground on each side of the
newly-discovered ground.' There is no
authority for this statement. 1t is not
law. Section 800, Revised Statutes of the
| United States, gives every locator the ex-
elusive possession and enjoyment of all
the surface of the land within his loca-
| ton line, including all lodges that crop
from beneath the surface Of his claim
The report, page $50, says: abandon
| ment by intention is, where one purpose
ly quits work, and assessment (?) on a
claim" This is not law. A person only
abandons claim by "intention,n when
he quits work with the intention of not
rnSpn1inn IN ~
abandons when he quits work with the
| intent to abandon.
The report page 500 says: Two or
more lodes cannot be embraced in one
application for patent, except for placer
claims embracing two or more lodes, or
in case of a consolidation of different
| lode claims under one group" There is
no law nor regulation to support this
| statement. AS a matter Of fact, any ap-
plic2tlon for patent may include score
of lodes, provided they all lie within the
limits of the claim single or consoli-
dated) sought to be patented. Before 1872
all locations were lode locations" Since
that date every quartz location is made
by marking off, etc., q piece of land con-
| tanning one or more lodes.
Again, on page $50, the report SAYS:
I'm contests between mineral and agri-
cultural claimants, it is necessary for the
mineral claimant to show that yaluabje
the land in dispute. This is inaccurate.
to say the least. The contest simply de-
termines the character OF the land by
direct or circumstantial evidence.
on the report (pages S96-7) is a de-
scrlptlon OF mill site on an odd section
shown to be within the railroad limits.u
AS non-mineral land passed to the rail-
| road and as mill site application must
be on non-mineral land, the matter looks
absurd.
On the report page $50 it is stated that
title to known mines does not pass with
| an agricultural patent" wish that such
was the law, but it is not. A patent con-
tanning no reservation conveys all the
right, title and interest of Uncle Samuel
SO says our Sppreme Court, and so says
Judge Saw ,er.
would like to add some structures on
the Chapter on Fresh Water Snails page
9l0), but the above will suffice for the
present. A. BURROWS.
Grass Valley, March ., 1891.