The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-02-12

1919, as the date for said hearing. On said day
all PARTIES in interest appeared, the plaintiff by
attorney ana the defendant in person and by at
torney, and proceeded at once with an introduc-
tiou OF the testimony which is now before US
for consideration.
The testimony presented is exceedingly vol
luminous, but we have carefully considered 1t IN
its entirety, although we find much OF the same
to be cumulative, irrelevant and immaterial-
There IL, of course, no evidence introduced re-
lating TO the first objection OF the state 10 the
allowance of McBrides application, l. e., ,hat
the tract had passed by grant to the state
of Washington, ana is therefore not subject to
entry under the mining laws. Section 10 oil the
act approved February q. 1859, being the en-
abling act by which the state OF Washington
was admitted into the Union. granted 10 the
state for school purposes, sections 10 ana 20 IN
every township Section IS OF said act provides,
however, "that all mineral lands snail De ex-'
empted from the grant made by this act The
grants made by said act did not take effect at
once. They were TO take effect only after GER
tain measures specified in the act had Teen com
piled with BY the territory, which would place
the same in proper condition TO be admitted as
state by presidential proclamation. Under said
act the state was duly admitted on November IL,
1889, and the grants referred to took effect at
that time. It matters not, in this case, whether
school land is subject to placer location If the
mission OF the state In this case the mineral
was alleged to have been discovered and the To-
cation OF the several claims was made long be-
fore the state was admitted, and therefore be-
fore the grant took effect At the time the
grant took effect, therefore, il was known that
the tract in question was alleged to be valuable
for mineral and was located upon as such. In
our opinion full title to this tract did not pass
to the state, under the grant, at that time, but
before full title could be secured under the
graut IL became Necessary for the state to clear
the tract of adverse claims. The state took the
proper steps to protect its interests when it pro-
tested against the allowance of McBri1e's appli-
cation on the ground that the tract applied for
is not chiefly valuable for mineral, but that part
of the protest which objected to the allowance
OF the application on the ground that the tract
applied for is the property of the state and not
subject to such application, does not coincide
with our view OF the law. under the circum-
stances. II the testimony in this case shows
that the tract is properly subject TO entry under
the mineral land laws, then the application OF
Mcbride should be allowed and patent issued to
him; if not, the title to same passes to the state
under the grant.
Ne now come to the consideration of the sec
ond and most important objection OF protestant
TO the allowance of the application, viz: that
said tract contains no valuable deposit OF gold
OF other mineral. On this question there is GER
both sides, but the same is exceedingly con-
ficting. There is scarcely an allegation made
by applicants witnesses that is not positively
denied by the witnesses appearing in behalf of
the state. The testimony of applicant and wit
is to the effect, in brief that the tract in
question is very rough and broken, and owing
thereto. and to the gravelly and sterile nature
of its surface, it is entirely worthless for agri-
cultural purposes. The entire tract is alleged
TO be one vast bed OF gravel, trayersed by an i'm
inense ravinc ctiallagher's gulch), which is over
100 feet deep, with precipitous sides, and in
which flows a very small stream of water, not
large enough to be utilized for the purposes OF
hydraulic mining. In this gulch or ravine the
applicant has placed his principal improve
ments, consisting of various tunnels. the plae-
ing of hosting machinery etc, the total cost of
same being about $1,000. In this gulch
also the principal prospecting has
been done by panning and by the
rocker process. The mining experts who APP
peared as witnesses for applicant all allege that
they have made sufficiently thorough exami-
nation of the tract in question to enable them to
testify Understandings regarding its value for
mineral. They were unanimous In the opinion
that the tract contained a sufficient amount of
gold to warrant its location as a placer claim,
and that ii could be profitably worked. They
found coors of gold in every portion OF the tract
that they prospected, and i'll what they consid-
cred paying quantities. Applicants principal
expert witness, Or. Everett, is of opinion that
the tract is WORTH for its mineral. 900, and
basing his opinion on the belief that the tract
contained 1900, 900 cubic yards OF gravel, con-
tanning Is 3S-l00 cents worth of mineral per
yard. II is alleged by all the witnesses for ap-
plicant that the tract could be easily mined by
the hydrarilic nroccss. the formnti0n being very