The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-03-15
To Hold 100 Acres There Must lie Eight
Disoovsries-A Deer Ledge County
Contest.

was located Jan. 6. 1890. Ia 1891 Il. q. Fer
rsll and seventeen others hlsd protest
against the entry. alleging that they we're
the lawful owners OF twelve acres OF the
placer olaimi that the applicants we're mos
authorized 10 obtain n patent for large
body OF land az q placer claim which has
no deposit OF precious mineral,
bat valuable only In small
DO tiOn thereof, as stone quarry
that the olaimants had not acted in good
faith, and that they we're seeking title 10
the land as placer mine that has only
value as building sites, owing to it's con-
tiguity TO the town Of Anaconda. With the
protest ufiidaviH were filed showing that
the protsstants had valuable improvements
on pat OF tho land and were residing
thereon. A hearing was ordered and ~ a
result the local officers decided that 10 was
incumbent on the placer o 'Aimants to show
that valuable der osits existed on each ten
] noTsH. and that inasmL ch AS that fact was not
shown the sntry sheuld not be cancelled
except ~ 20 the ten acres foundtnR one
excavation In which limestone had been
disclosed. They also found that the land
had but little value for agricultural purposes
/ that at the date OF location of the placer
there we're four dwelling houses located In
an enclosure Of about ten acres on ths
] uOrNnouhh corner OF tue lauGs luo
| ants apr ealsi from the decision OF the local
ofioe and the commissioner of the general
land ofhce reversed the local othoe. be
protestants thereupon appealed to the sec
Rotary Of the interio', and that official re-
verses the commissioner, sustaining the
local Office. he secretary. in his decision,
says the testimony In the case, 90 far as 10
might be Of value in determining the sew
erHl points ana objects on the plat offered
in evidsnee, entirely insufficient Continu-
ing the decision SAYS;
IL will be conceded that the testimony
shows that the claimants base thsis right
to the ground uron the fact that IL contains
| limestone, slightly impregnAtsd with iron,
which 10 valuab bic for huxina puTposes In
smelting the more IrsciOus ores, ana for
the sandstone for building turpoaos 10 son-
tanned. In the location certificate, how
ever. 10 10 said, "1hs looatoFs have dis
covered . deposit of lime and iron rock
valuable for huIing purposes within the
limits OF the claim" This location was
made upon an excavation disclosing lime
rock in the wsstern part of the land. There
are three Of these excavations ia close prox-
unity. but as l understand the testimony,
the one marked mo. 81 10 the one thai
contains the Limestone. while the oths
show q sandstone 10 nation. The o 10 no
claim on the part OF tue claimants that they
made any other discovery bat. as l under
/ stand, they afterwards found in the north
east corner, where the houses are, one or
two old excavations in wnish sandstone vas
also discovered. It 10 this particular sx-
oavation-"No. 3"-oT discovery, that the
register and receiver had reference TO when
they decided "a valuable del osit bsiRg
known 10 exist al any point, the claimant
may generally take the surround
decision holds that this proposition
ia inapplieable 30 this case, because. the
claim being situated on unsurveyed lands
and being applied for and entered gs 'lot
No. 90 contains no ten acre tracts. The
claim az located is an entirety. Sec. l..
D., 81
1T having been established that sid lol
No. 40. as an entirety, coatsins q valsabls
deposit OF limestone, 10 follows that the
ENTITY OF said tract must stand"
ms ,uling is really the basis OF the APP
peal and the elaborate Arguments hled are
almost entirely addressed 10 this pf0pssi-
tion. The testimony of cue OF the lOcators
as 20 the discovery and location ought % DO
conclusive on these points. lie says he was
on the Rround when u was lseated. He
was Aleo asked, where was tbs discovery
Of that elaim7n HE Snswsr was. Il am
not positivsi / think the notice vas posted
in this excavation. take IL that by this
excavation" he means NE. g."
From all the testimony / think 10 10 clear
that the location Was originally made for
the limestone which had previously been
disclosed In excavation No. B. sud that
there was no other discovery en- any other
portion Of the lana upou which 20 base
location. Ahd Il Ia equally clear that the
pTinoipal value placed upon that portion Of
the land By the Witnesses Tor claimants
upon which she houses are situstsd. IS not
for the sandstone they do not claim 10 exist
there, but solely as a oonvenisnt route for
transportation 60 and from the limestone
quarry.
Il is but fair to the claimants to state
that they claim that the sandstone, In addi-
ton "a being useful AZ building material,
has a special quality of endurance Agaiust
heat. which makes 10 valuable for furnaces.
In the frat place. think that il makes
no differences as 10 the rights OF the looa-
tors 10 placer claim whether 10 10 surveYel
or unsuTveJed. They are required in either
instance 90 do all the necessary acts TO per
feet a location, but upon surveyed land
their loeation shall be made TO "confo M
as near AZ practicable with the Uuitsa
States system of public land surveys"
Aside from this one requirement there IL no
difference IN locations on the two classes OF
lands.
Section 2S29 of the revised statutes says;
Claims called "placsrG' shall be sub
iect TO entry and patent under like CIR.
cumsiHnoes and conditions. and upon simi-
lar proceedings, as are p. divided for vein OF
lode claims
Ia o der 20 determine what IL meant by
the words under like circumstances aud
| condition. 10 IL necessary 20 refer 60 sec
ton 2.310 revised statates). which p
vides, among other things. that no looa-
ton OF = mining claim shall 10 made until
the discovery OF a vein OF lode within the
limita of the claim located" The we'll es-
tRbl.she meaning OF this language II that
after n discovery the nine may locate his
lode claiin OF the Dimensions prescribed by
said section. Discovery and appropriation
- the sou Gee Of right. and by all isgisla-
ton. whether national state % territorial.
spd by all inning regulations anI n es
this required. Erhardt vs.. boaro. llS u.
=, b37; United tates ". Iron Silver Ain
Ing Company. i2S H.. CAS-; Oheiily ".
Cam bel. lt6 ID. us.
| These q - thc like Ct cumatanees end
conditions" as | view %. undef which
placer claim muy be located.
! now. hy section p 13l (revised stat
utesl IL IL ntoviItd that ''no such (plAcsr)
location shall include more than tvouty
acres for each individual claim nti' aud
b. the preceding section II 10 y divided -
an association OF persons may make loca-
tion OF not TO sKossd leo sofss.
IL will be conceded that the individual IL
required 90 make a discovery on tho twenty
&C 80 he 10 permitted 20 take. Ibia being
true. 10 IL difiicnlt 90 conceive OF q con-
strnction OF tue Law that would disaTiualn-
ate against tie individual IN favor OF she