The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-03-02
MINING CLAIM DECISION.
Secretary Noble Rules on a Point
Regarding the Legality Of
y" .t#. >s Relocations.
Penalty Of the Failure OF Appli-
cants to Pay the Govern
mont It's Dues.
A Decision which WIN BE of Interest to
Miners and Mine Owners Through
out Montana.
The secretary of the interior has recently

The secretary of the interior has recent,
rendered a decision which is OF great i'm
portance to mining men. 1t is In regard t.
the legality Of relocating mining claims
and according to it, if there is q failur
upon the part of tho applicant for a paten
to nav the amount duo the government
then all assessment must be done the SAM
as if no application for patent had beer
made. Neglect to do this assessment worl
leaves the claim open to relocation. Tit
secretary in deciding the question says:
On the 18th of june, 1884. the Belvoil
Mill and Mining company, a corporation,
filed in the local land office at Sacramento
Cal, it's application for u patent for tht
Belvoir lode and mill site, lots 81 A and B,
township u north. range s east, being min
eral application No. LILO, and furnished
all the evidence necessary to entitle it to
make final entry.
On the ID of April, 1889, Luke Ferguson,
the plaintiff IN the case. fled with the re-
corder of Placer county, California, the
county in which the claim is situated, a no
tice Of location of the Boulder lode claim,
which, in effect, is q relocation Of the Bel
voir lode claim.
On the olst of May, 1889, he applied to
the local office for a hearing to determine
the truth of his allegations that tho com
pany had abandoned its claim, and had
failed to do the required assessment work
thereon for over two years. and he asked
Tor the cancellation of its application for
patent. The local officers thereupon or
dered a hearing to determine whether or
not the said company, by failure to comply
with the law, had abandoned its claim IN
der it's application for patent, and whether
Ferguson was entitled TO make entry as a
relocator.
After tho taking Of considerable testi-
mony at the hearing, and after the contest
ant had closed his case, the company made
a verified application for a continuance,
and for a commission to take the testimony
of certain absent and material witnesses.
The continuance WAS granted. but not the
commission, and from the refusal of the
local officers to grant the commission the
company sought to appeal to your office.
The local officers held that their order de-
pying the commission was lnterlocutory,
and no appeal could be taken therefrom,
but consented to forward the application
for a commission, ana the attempted appeal
from their decision thereon, to your office
for consideration.
tinued arrived, the contestant appeared with
additional witnesses. The comrany pro
tested against the allowance Of any addi-
tional testimony during the tendency Of its
appeal to your office. from the decision Of
the local officers refusing its application for
q commission. The local officers overruled
such protest, heard the testimony offered
bv the contestant, and on the 10th Of De
cember, 1888, united in a decision holding
that mineral application lilo should be
cancelled.
From this decision an appeal was taken to
your office, and the record in the case was
received by you on tho 18th of February,
1890. After examining it. you decided that
the local officers erred III denying the COM
i. pany's application for a commission, and
without considering tho case upon it's
merits you returned the record to the local
office on the 2Sth of March, 1880. with in
structions to those officers to issue a COM
mission to some competent and suitable
person in San Francisco to take the depo-
sitions of the witnesses named and to render
their decision upon the completed record,
and report to you as required by the regu-
lations.
These instructions were complied with.
and on the 9th of June, 1856, the register
and receiver rendered their second decision
in the case, in which they reached the same
conclusion as in their first, and held that
mineral application 1,410 be cancelled
From that decision an appeal was taken to
your office, and on the 18Th OF October, 1890,
you affirmed the same. a further appeal
bAiAED ~ SooO w A. aSRat AASA1 ~ III
Slderatlon.
The evidence in this case presents several
peculiar and unusual features. A company
which had expended between $4,000 and
$40, 600 in developing its luiue and carrying
on its business, failed to make the payment
of So, which should have accompanied its
application for a patent. When it was dis
covered that thla payment had not been
made, the amount was rendered to the local
officers, who declined to acceptiton account
rf r, ~ p,y 1, w., rxt-1.I.~ i~,.- JF-1I -.
the belief that this entry had been COM
pleted, the ompany suspended its under
ground mining operations III December,
1886, and shut down its mill in February
1857, for the reason that it was not capable
OF dong tho heavy work required.
Numerous experiments satisfied the COM
pany that to work the mine profitably a
more poWsffu! mill Wns necessary, aud 1t
decided Upon the removal of the old and
the erection OF d new one. During this
time the work and expenditure npon the
mine required by section 1924, revised
statutes, was not 10 formed and made, and
in accordanoa with tile provisions of that
section, the mlne became open to reioca-
ton. Or this circumstance Ferguson took
advantage, and made ms relocation on tho
I'd of april, 1889.
It was not until this relocation that the
company became aware that it's entry was
defective, on account of the non-payment
of the 500 already mentioned. This paw
MleEF Is one OIL LIE requirements GuururF-
ated in section 1926, revised statutes, to be
complied with before a patent Gun be OBJ
tanned.
from tho evidence in the case YOU find
that tho company did not intend to aban-
don IT'S claim, but That its failure to per
form the labor and make tho expenditure
each year teqnired by gection 1924 of the
statutes, resulted IN an abandonment, and
rendered the mlne open to relocation. |
am compelled to concur in that conclusion.
Jhe facts are clea'. that flom the early
spring of 1887, to the time of the re]oca-
ton, III 1883, the company neglected TO
reform any labor or work, or make apy
improvements on said claim. 1t did NOT
even remove the old mill, preparatory to
building a now one, but sold il, and the
purchaser did the removing. his ueuiec,
on It's part was IN the belief that is cntrv
was complete, and that 1T could safely do,
continue its operations, but this was n
mistaken belief, growing out of the NEGLECT
of It's own officers
Upon the facts in the case the locnl
officers found against the COMPANY, md
you concurred III their Judgment. In ,he
case of Creswell Mining ompany vs.. John-
son Is l.. D.. 44O) it was held that 'coucnr-
ring decisions of the local officers and
general land Office on questions of fact
viii not be disturbed by the Department,
unless clearly against the weight OF eyi
dcnce." | find no such situation IN th,
case at bar, and the decision appealed fron
ID therefor affirmed.