The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-07-26
TAKE THE TOWN
A Controversy Between Lot Owners
Of Robinson City and a Lode
Claimant
The Survey Of the Latter Ran
Right Through the Cor
poration.
Acting mmiyslo STONE Decides That
tho Land II More valusbi for Build-
Ing Than for Mining,

Acting Commissioner Stone, OF the gen
eral land ofics. has just rendered q dsois-
ion OF great interest in tho case OF b. b.
Tisrney and others against tho Baltimore
Mining company, which involves title TO
most of tho township Of Robinson City,
something less than two miles north of
Castle in Meapher county. On March 2.
1891, tho Baltimore Mining company filed
in the Helena land Office a mineral applica-
tiou for the Baltimore lode in the townsits
of Robinson City. On May 4 following
Tisrnsy and other miners, lot owners in
Robinson City. filed q protest against is
suing the patent for the Baltimore lode,
alleging that prior to IL location the ground
had been surveyed and occupied for town
site purposes; that there wal not sufficient
evidence to show that the strike of the a.
legged mineral vein extended with the looa-
ton across the townsite; and that tho min
eral location and application were not
made in good faith, but for the pur ooss Of
obtaining ground valuable only for town
site purposes. The Helena land office, after
hearing both sides. decided in October.
1881. that the ground covered by the Balti-
more lode location had no mineral value,
and that the portion in conflict with Rob-
inson City was more valuable for
townsite than for mining purposes.
The mineral application was Or
dered cancelled to its full extent.
Tn mineral applicants appealed. The act
ing commissioner, in deciding the case,
reviews the testimony taken 1t the hearing.
II shows. he says, that on Sept. Z, 1887,
some miners and prospsctors employed in
that neighborhood held q meeting and do
cided to survey a portion of the ground,
for the townsite of Robinson CITY. This
was done and quite = town has grown up.
though no application for townsite had
been filed. The mineral location was made
Sept. %, 1887, and the claim was partly de-
sorlbed A. running across what is now
known ~ Robinson City" The official
survey made the claim extend 200 fest
further north than il did when located. 4
discrepancy. the acting commissions says.
not explained satisfactorily in the testi-
mony. and although about fifty buildings
of Robinson City are located on this land,
of the fact. 1t appears that tho site Of
Robinson City Is a low fiat or bottom. about
600 feet wide, extending northwest and
oOutuouots VAlAuou W 1AkA 0AN
traversed by q small creek. About one
half Of the mining claim, As surveyed. ii
within the boundaries of the town, the dis
covery being on the slope of the hill in tn
southern part. II was alleged that no
mineral had ever been discovered in the
fiat where, the town is located
while the mineral claimants held other
wise. The acting commissioner says, re
Qardipg this matter: II am satisfied tha
the Baltimore claim 10 at best q mere pros
pec.; that no valuable ore has ever beef
taken thsrsfrorn, sold or shipped; and tina
if a mineral bearing vein exists at all. whiol
ia doubtful, ito strike. following the cours
Of the hills would extend northwest ant
southeast from the discovery shaft. and no
across the town of Robinson City a
located" He thinks the existence of
valuable lode q mere conjecture. and tina
the four years which have elapsed sine
location afforded ample time to establish
the mineral character Of the claim. He i
satisfied that What ore is on the claim i
hoat from the hills, and that the lode doe
not contain mineral in paying quantities
II therefore conclude" he says, that tn
land involved in this controversy is non
mineral, and at the present time mos
valuable for townsite purposes" HI
afirms the decision OF the Helena office an,
rejects the mineral application. A. H
Nelson ard w. G. M. Settles repressnte.
the minerH. and John w. Eddy, the Balti
more Mining company.