The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-10-19
MINERAL LAND DECISION.
The Secretary Of the Interior Rules
on a Case of Interest to
Montanians.
More Liberty Allowed Under It to
Prove the Mineral Character
of Land.
An Entry Cancelled by the General Land
once Involving . Tract of Valuable
Timber Land.

Nelson & Settles, the land attorneys. re-
ferring to the decision in the contest case
of r. D.. Spratt VS.. j. b. Edwards, in which
land on E!dorado bar is at stake, says the
decision In question was not that of the
commissions of the general land office bu'
of the secretary of the interior. and while
the decision denied their motion for oertio-
Yari 1t granted just what that motion was
fled to secure. a rehearinR in the case
thereby reversing the decision of the com
missioner on that point. As the secretary
decision is one of general interest to parties
to contests pending, or hereafter to arise
between agricultural and mineral claimants
In this state, the decision is given in full.
so far as it pertains to the question regard
ing the character of the land in dispute.
Upon that point it is as follows:
an Colorado Coal and lion company Va.
United States (123 U. T., 500 it was said
(page 32S) respecting this question:; The
question must DO determined according to
the facts in existence at the time OF the
sale. Ii upon the premises at that time
there were not actual known Mines capa-
BILE of being profitable worked for their
product, so az to make the land more valu-
able for mining than for agriculture, a title
to them, acquitted under the presumption
act, cannot be successfully assailed. See
also Sullivan vs. Iron Silver Mining COM
pany GA U. 5. 431), and Iron Silver Min
inc company VS.. Mike and starr Gold and
Silver Mining company (143 U. s.. 394).
I'm Davis vs.. Wsibold (139 U. s. SOD
the same doctrine is announced. While III
this case the finding Of the register and re-
csiver, that the land was not mineral in
character, became final and conclusive
upon the parties. it only became 80 up to
the date of the trial. 1t had no relation to
the discovery of mineral that might there
after be made prior to the time
the government parts with its
title to the tract. 1t was found by you that
Edwards had not cultivated she tract as re-
quired by law. and your judgment required
him to make new proof within the lifetime
of his entry. If 1t BIO true, that such valua-
Bile minerals have been discovered on the
tract since the hearing, as will make its
mineral character appear, / see no obiec-
ton to the mineral claimants or other
proper party protesting the new proof, on
that ground, when Edwards offers 1t, or
uuon his failure to offer new proof as re-
auired by your decision, to have an oppor-
tuAisy III q piopSA MahheA W 49,"
eral character. If new proof shall be
offered and protested IN the ground above
indicated, the testimony should not be
allowed to go back of the date of the trial
already had. But if Edwards fails to offer
such new proof. then the mineral character
OF the land should remain open and if these
or other parties desire to show such charac-
ter, they SHOULD be permitted to do 30 with
out reference to The time it's mineral
character NAV be discovered or become
known, provided 1t ID before the sale of the
tpact