The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-05-13
THE LAND NON-M|NERAL,
An Important Decision Made by the
Register and Receiver at
Helena.
II Involves Nearly Seventy Acres
at the Mining Camp Of
Barker.
Various Efforts Have Bssn Made to, Get
1t - u Mine and ~ u
TOwnsite.

Register 6wiggetA and Receiver BourQuin
Of the Helena land Office yesterday rendered
a decision In n case involving nearly seventy
acres Of valuable lind at Barker, MsaQhsr
county. June 9. 1883. Robert q. Kunz 81 nj.
filed mineral mp .ication for the Combina-
ton placer claim. G933 acres. August !,
1881. the citizens Of Gold Run Aled = pro.
test against allowing the mineral entry.
On the day of tho hearing the mineral
claimants. by the attorneys. who filed no
authority to so not. entered into stipulation
Will the protsstinR parties, by which they
waived all right to the placer. and abnn-
doned and ~relinquished II. and petitionsd
the probate judge Of Meaghsr county TO
procure patent for the Gold Run townsite,
etal application. This rslinquisbment WAS
hled with the county recorder of Msaeher
county, but not In the Helena land office.
Hence whom on July 20. 1890. the district
judge of Meagher county applied to file
deolaratory statement for the Gold hun
%townsite, it WAS denied for the reason tina
IL oonficted with the mineral applioa-
tion. August 8 following the appli-
cation on behalf Of tho townsits WIS
again rendered. accompanied by what
puFported to be q copy of the rslinquish-
mont by the mineral claimants. The town.
site application was again denied because
the authority Of those who extended the ,e-
linquishment was not shown, nor was il
under seal. On March 4. 1881 the mineral
claimants made application TO purchase
and the claim was entered. Aug. ~ fol-
lowing 9. II. Tolliver. James M. Clifton
and Q. J. Olinger filed protest against the
mineral entry. and two days later Edward
McNally and twenty-one others also filed
their protests. All the protests alleged
that fraud WAS practiced in making the ap-
plioation. that entry was made for specu-
lative purposes merely; that placer gold in
paying quantities did not exist in tho
ground: that $500 had not been expended
on the claim in valid Improvements or la
Dor, and that the afldavit Of resumption
Of work was false. The general land Of
fee ordered an investigation 20 to tho min
eral or non mineral character Of the
grounds, the improvements and develop
ments. and any other matter intended TO
show the intent with which the entry was
made. The register and receiver, in their
decision. say:
I'VE think The testimony establishes be-
yond q doubt that no placer gold in paying
quantities exists or 10 known to exist in
this ground. Numerous witnesses for pro-
i ~testnnts testify to prospecting tha ground
by the usual process, that of tanning and
none of them found more than 'colors' of
gold. a COLOR being too small to designate
a value. some Of them did not even find
80 much. Nor does there seem TO be at the
present time any of those lasting proofs Of
pnst mining, such AZ excavations in. the
gravel or dumps of washed gravel" Other
reasons are given for not thinking the
ground mineral. The applicants fling a
defective REIMBURSEMENT of their claim
when protested BY residents seeking title
under the townsite laws, and joining in a
petition to the probate judge to secure title
as a townsite, seems 10 the land officers an
admission of the non-mineral character OF
the ground. They also found that the
ground had been plated and lots offered for
sale, and somo of them sold. Continuing,
the opinion says:
"While ii 10 true that II land ID mineral
and title is sought in good faith because of
its value for mining. its devotion to other
uses s%ubseausnt TO entry will not indicate
bad faith nor defeat the entrv. Yet entry
of neither mineral nor nom mineral ground
can be made under the mining laws for
townsite purposes. aud taking into view oil
tho facts q oircumstanees in this case,
We do not think any Reasonable doubt can
exist that II was with an intent to devote
this land to townsite uses that application
and entry was made. Finding the land
non mineral in character and that the on
try was made for other than mining pur-
poses, calls for the cancellation Of the
entry"
Under the decision the land in question
the land 10 open to either homestead or
toWnsite entry.