The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1891-02-21
A YOUNG MAN VERY BADLY FROZEN.
He Broke Through the Ice Of Deep
Creek and Gets Il Ducking-
Both Feet Badly Frost
Bitten.
A Pleasant Progressive Euchre Party
at the Home of MIR. and
Mrs. Trigg.

EDITOR TRIBUNE: With the rapid rise
in the value of public LANDS in this state
the question, How may one legitimately
acquire title to such lands? becomes in
creasingly interesting.
Now that congress has limited the total
acquisition possible to any one person
under entries made slnce Aug. 80, 1890,
to $50 acres, and the commissioner of the
general land Office has said that such lin
itation applies to mineral as we'll as ag-
ricultural lands, it is of no little impor-
lance that we have an authoritative detini.
ton of the term mineral" as used in the
mining act of May IA, 1872.
Hitherto the Interpretation of the gen.
eral land Office has tended to constantly
increasing the latitude in the cOnstruc-
ton of the United States statutes upon
that point, so that the impression has be-
come quite general that almost any kind
Of stone, as well as deposits of gold, could
be patented under the general designa-
ton of "placer claims AS employed in
section 1929 of the revised statutes of the
United States.
Secretary Noble, however, seems in his
desision of January .. 1891, in the case of
Conlin VS. Kelly, II l.. d. /, to have called
IA very sudden halt upon such liberal con-
struction, and the certain discontinue of
many placer claimants In this state. In
that decision there are several very signiti-
cant points. The secretary quotes from
the decision of commissioner of the gen.
eral land office as follows:
"There Is no boubt that this quarry of
rock is mineral within the provisions of
the law and the decisions Hereunder { n.
p. Bennett jr. 3, L. d. 11G) and as such
subject to entry as Il placer claim, there
being no veins of quartz or rock in
place containing any of the precious
metals" The case of n. p. Bennett, jr.,
has hitherto been the one upon which We
have mainly relied to support quarry
claims; but following the above quotation
Secretary Noble says: Il cannot concur
in this statement in your opinion. The
case you cite is not a decision of thisde-
partment, but a letter from Commissioner
Mcfarland to the local office ut Leadville,
Colorado" and then citing the language
of Lectrin 1889 II. s., L. s., he says: ut
IS apparent that the deposit therein
spoken of means a deposit having some
special value, other than that of mere
stone quarring for general purposes 4 y +
The stone in the tract in ContrO-
versy has no peculiar property
or characteristic hat gives il
special value such as attaches to gypsum,
limestone, mica, marble, slate, asphaltum,
borax, auritierOus cement, tire-Clay. kaOlin
or petroleum. Its characteristic appears
to be its hardness, and its value in this
particular min appears to be its prOXim-
ity to the town of Alexandria, which has
come into some prominence. y n y 1t
is simply a quarry of stone for general
building purposes, and as such not sub
ject to entry as a placer under the min
eral law"
1t will be seen that the secretary EN-
phasiZes the fact that his Is the first au-
thoritative decision upon the question
presented, and since such is the fact his
definition of a placer claim" Is of spe-
cial importance, both for what it includes
MS well as what it excludes.
Already the cancellation of placer sp-
plicatiOns under this decision has begun,
and "the end is not YETI" but claimants for
stone quarries will hereafter have to fight
ior their claims against this ruling of the
secretary. Yours, truly,
NELSON. LANGHoRNE X SETTLES.
HELENA, Mont. Feb. 10, 1891.