The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-09-16
II WAS MINERAL LAND.
A Decision Involving a Very Valu-
able Tract Adjoining the Town
site Of Anaconda
The Contestants Claimed It Was
Worth More for Residence
Purposes.
Helena Land Office O%verrnlsd by the Gen
sral Land Ofios In Washington
In . Big Case.

The first decision from ths general land
Office in 4 long time IN which the findings
Of the Helena ofice have been overrulsd,
was received yesterday. II was in the case
Of Il. @. Ferrell and others against william
L. Hogs and others. and vas . contest over
the Horseshoe quarry placer, adjoining the
townsite OF Anaconda. The Horseshoe
quarry placer was located April Q. 1889. BY
William L. Hogs. Marcus DAILY and six
others. and the mineral entry for the claim
was made Jan. 6. 1890. On Feb. 10. 1891,
a protest against issuance Of patent for the
claim was fled by Il. O. Ferrell and seven
teen others. The protest alleged, in effect,
that the claim contained no deposit of pre-
cious metals. but was only valuable. in a
small portion of II. a. a stone quarry. and
that It was sought for speculative pur-
poses. the land being chiefiv valuable for
business purposes. lying contiguous TO the
town OF Anaconda. II WAS further
stated that suit was pending
in court to settle the title to
the land in controversy. A hearing was
ordered to determine whether any of the
land was valuable for minerals. and II any
OF it was occupied for business or resi-
denoes. 1t was in evidence that the por-
tion of the land claimed for residence pur-
poses contained 40 lime. On the other
hand Witnesses testified that the claim was
valuable - q whole fol- deposits Of lime
stone and sandstone, bearing small quanti-
ties Of iron. The Helena land Office de-
cided that the only discovery of mineral
was in one excavation, and laid down the
proposition that the mineral claimant must
show a valuable deposit Of mineral upon
every ten acre tract, in consequence OF
which they should be allowed to take a
tract of ten acres surrounding the sxcava-
ton mentioned, and that the entry should
DO cancelled except as to that ten acre
tract. From this decision an appeal was
taken TO the general land office.
Acting Commissioner Stone, in his de-
cision just received from the general land
office. holds that the proposition of the
register and receiver that where the char
acter of the land 10 in question. mineral
must be shown on every ten-acre tract. 10
inapplicable to this case, because the claim
being situated upon unsurveyed land and
being entered as ono lot, contains no ten
acre tract. II was located and entered as
an entirety. It having been established
nble deposit Of limestone, tho acting COM
missioner holds that it follows that the
entry Of the whole tract must stand. A ease
is quoted in which IL was held
that the fact that q part of q
claim was occupied by residents of a town
was no bar to the entry OF the land under
the mining laws, provided the land was
mineral and belonged to the United States.
In the Anaconda case the acting commits
sioner says the contestants could have fully
guarded any tight they might have had to
the land by proper proceedings under the
laws relating to the acquisition Of title to
land used for townsits purposes. For these
reasons tEs Helena Office 10 reversed.
It 10 understood that the land in dispute
was located for depot and general uses of
the railroad which In being built from
Missouls to Anaconda.