Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1891-07-25
MORE ABOUT riMnKn CUTTING.

The Register 81 the Boise Land
Office has received a letter from r.
II. Carter. land commissioner NJ
\ Washinkto ton, explanatory Of the new
law relating to cutting timber upon
government mineral lands. Put
this letter along side Of the one the
same gentleman wrote TO Hon. Tom
Wren of Nevada, which was pub
lished in the BULLETIN, and the
general reader win still be in the
dark az to clear Interpretation of
the law. The letter is dated Wash
ington. June 80, 1891. and appears
\ in the Statesman:
Sir:-I am in receipt Of your let
ter of June 6, transmitting letter
from w. III. Ridenbaugh Of Boise
City, Idaho. inquiring in connection
with circular of May 5, 1891,
whether or not it is required to
procure permission to cut and re-
move timber from public lands
which are known to be mineral"
! In reply to this inquiry and with
view to your advising Mr.. Riden-
baugh in full with respect to his
rights and privileges in regard to
the use Of public timber on land
both mineral and non-miniral in the
State of Idaho, you are informed as
/ follows:
In accordance with paragraph 3,
Of circular Of May 8, 1891, pre-
scribing rules and regulations under
the Act of March 3, 1891, if the
land from which it is desired to re-
move timber is known to be Of a
strictly mineral character, and that
it il not subject to entry under ex-
listing laws of the United States, ex-
cept for mineral entry, his rights
and privileges in respect to the use
of the timber thereon are such as
are extended by the act Of June 3,
1873 go Stats. SS) in connection
with existing rules and regulations
prescribed Hereunder by the de-
partment Of the interior (see circu-
lar Of August 5, 1886, herewith).
If, however, the land from which
it is desired to remove timber for
purposes of sale or traffic within the
State, are not know n to be strictly
mineral within the meaning of the
term as defined above, it, in that
event, becomes necessary to submit
an application in the matter pre-
pared i'm accordance with the re-
quirements set forth in paragraphs
6, Z and s of said circular Of May s.
In reply to the further point raised
in your letter respecting the term
mineral lands in connection with the
said act of June 8, 1878, your atten-
ton is directed to the decision rem
dered by Judge Bach in the case Of
the United States VS.. Milo j. Legg,
at Miles City, Montana, April 1887,
in which it is held as follows Min
eral lands are those lands which are
valuable for the mineral Except
coal) which they contain and which
are more valuable for the minerals
therein contained than they are as
agricultural lands or for the timber
growing thereon. Mineral lands are
not subject to entry under the gen
eral land laws of the United States,
hut can only be located and entered
as mines and mining claims under
the &c. of May ~, 1872"
"The authority granted by the act
of June 3, 1878, to cut timber, APP
ply exclusively to lands which are
strictly mineral in character and
subject to mineral entry only. The
defendants must prove by prepon-
derance of evidence that such lands
are more valuable for the mineral
than for any other purpose, and that
they are not suitable for agrienltu-
raj purposes or cultivation, or val
liable solely for the timber thereon. >
Mr.. Carter quotes from other de-
cisions and again refers to 20 stats,
So. but should we copy his entire
letter the reader would be none the
wiser. What number Of people in
this section would like 20 know, is:
Can a man now chop timber on
government land, manufacture it
into lumber, mining timbers, cord
wood, tagging, ct, and SELL the
same without violating the law? or
must he first get permit to do so
from the Secretary of the Interior ?
If a permit is not necessary, then
Mr.. Carter has misled and caused
expense to thousands Of people by
the circulation of his circular OF
May 9th, and also by his letter "a
the Nevada ex-congressman.