The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-01-05
The Northern Pacific Must Find Out
Tor itself All Mineral
Applications.
Policy Of the Interior Department.
Defined On a. Important
question.
Com missions Carter, Of ths GsnsrAi Laad
Ohice. Upheld for Not Furnishing
tie Company ~IarSrmatiou.

Sawyer that the words mineral land" In
tho Northern Pacific grant act, meant only
such land as WAS known TO be mineral vt
tho time the map Of definite location WAS
filed, the company applied to the general
land Office, asking that the road be notified.
through the local Offices, of all mineral
applications on ground claimed by the rail
road. Commissioner Garter decided not to
nllow the application. and "a appeal was
taken TO the department Of the interior.
Secretary Noble has also decided against
the railroad. The following letter from
Commissioner Carter to the Helena land
office, and dated Dec, 30, has just been
received:
Rsgister and Receiver, Hslena, Montana.
Sirs-I enclose herewith for your infor-
nation, q COPY OF the departmental de-
decisions Of October rs and November 9,
1891, declining to notify the Northern Pa
cife Railroad company OF all mineral en-
tries made for lands in the odd numbered
sections within tho grant, TO said company.
Very respectfully,
r.. H. CARTER, Commissioner
The decision Of the secretary of the in
terror is az follows, /.
The commissioner of the general land
Office.
Sir:-I have considered. the appeal 81 the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company from
your decision Of October 28th, last, declin-
ing TO notify it of 1.-THE approval for patent,
far a. they embrace lands in q numbered
sections within its grant, wherein the record
shows that the discovery and location OF
the claim was subsequent to the filing OF
the map of definite location" and your
refusal on November 9Th, last, to review
said decision. 80 that opportunity may be
afforded it to appeal the case to this depart.
ment for decision whenever il is so de-
sired"
The evident purpose Of the application Of
the company is, to ask the department.
to review n ro.review In ench instance
the case Of the Central Pacific Railroad
company W.. Valentine, IL Il. D., 23S. In
prosecuting this appeal, the company ap-
parently loses sight Of your decision and is
arRinp 4 reversal thereof IN the theory that
its rights are held by you to be guaged by
selecting or listing the odd-numberod SEC
tions within its primary limits. and a gen
eral discussion Of the denial Of appeal which
ment with the expression OF the belief that
tho Valentine case is wrong, and has been
80 pronounced BY the circuit court OF Mon
tana and the supreme court of the United
States.
By reference to the letter of the rsprescn-
JdulvC u Nj SOAAR uAyY - VAC u Vi SosO.
Der 1, 1891, upon which your decision is pre-
dictated, IT will be seen that the question
involved in this case is one which has been
SO thoroughly considered BY the depart
ment and upon principle is 30 firmly seated
in my Judgment, that futher discussion
thereof would serve no good purpose.
While it may bs true, AZ commended by
counsel, that the circuit court forths Ninth
judicial circuit has gone to the extent Of
holding that the right Of the company at
taohes to mineral lands, unless there
are known mines thereon, at the
yet | am unwilling to accede to the conten-
tion that the supreme court OF United States
has SO decided. This question, and many
Of these decisions cited, were all fully and
deliberately considered in the Valentine
case. and the conclusions arrived at therein
40 my deliberate Judgment of the rights of
the company under tho terms OF its grant.
In that case, to which I strictly adhere, il is
expressly hold, that the discovery Of ths
mineral character Of the land at any timS
prior to the issuance Of the patent to the
railroad company, or certitcation where
patent is not required, effectual!y excludes
it from the grant, and | am not disposed to
reconsider that doctrine in each individual
case which the company may desire to
prosecute here upon appeal, where the
reasons and the evident intent and purpose
for tho appeal appear to be as we'll defined
as stated in this application which you de-
MED. The claim is, where the record shows
that the discovery and location of the mine
was subsequent to the filing of the map of
definite location, and approved for patent,
the company shall be entitled to notice
that it may appeal from your action. This
showing, upon it's face, discloses the fact
that the Judgment of the department must
be that the company under suoh clrcum-
stances is not entitled to the land. Even
it notice were given as requested in such
cases and you should deny the right OF APP
real and application were made for u writ
of csrtiorari to require you to send up the
record for my examination, should feel
the company had no inst cause for COM
plant. md / cannot require a formal and
useless act to be done in q case where the
Assvitabls conclusion Of tho department
Ghast be. I'M is known beforehand will be.
against the position taken in his appeal.
/ shall hold, until satisfied by a decision of
the supreme court to the contrary, that the
doctrine announced in the Valentine case
ia stare dacisis so far as this department. 10
concerned, and | have no disposition to
consume the time thereof in q further con-
sideration of that question upon . review
of the authorities already digestsd.
The ruling meets with my approval. The
appeal is dismissed m tho record re-
turned. Very respectfully,
JOHN w. NOBLE, Secretary.
Great reduction on goods of all kinds at The
Bee Hive this week.
Get cut sale prices of dry goods and
cloaks elsewhere. then come TO Brunell's