The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-03-16
THREE VIEWS COMPARED.
The Ideas Of District, State Supreme
and United States Supreme
Courts.
Expert Raymond Writes an Arti-
ole on the Amy Silver
smith Case.
the Only Proper View OF the
Qaestlan.

n. W. Raymond. the eminent mining ex-
pert. hss an article In the iast issus OF the
Engineering and Mining Journal on the re-
cent decision OF the United States supreme
court In the Amy -sIlvstsmith case. A COPY
OF the decision IL Published In the same is-
cue Of the journal, and Prof. Raymond's
article explains the difference between
the ruling Of Judge Stephen DeWolfe. Of
llver Bow county. Associate Justice W. H..
Dewitt, on behalf Of the supreme cour, OF
Montana, aud Justice stephen j Field. for
the supreme court OF the United States.
Tho Raymond article Ia ne follows
I'VE Iublish IN another column one OF
tho most important mining decisions rem
defsd by the Unitel States Supreme court
for several ysnrs past. Ths case OF silas y.
King ". the Amy-silversnith Consolidated
Mining company Is a cause oelebre.' i,
was decided in the a 81 Instance by the
district court OF Silver Bow county. Mon
tnns, upon Que theory of the Law; that de.
cision was ovsrruled by the supreme court
Of Montana upon nnothef theory; and the
United States supreme court now revers,
tho latte decision. Tut without adopting
the principles Of the formef, and declares
the Law 90 be different from what IL was
construed TO be by either of the subordi-
nate ibunals.
The diagram contained in the opinion
clearly shows the facts a on which the con-
troversV was based. IL is Rdmitte that
the apex Of the Amy lode. upon which the
Amy mine was located. does not cross the
so-called end-lines OF the location, bat on
tho contrary O. osses the side-lines. After
crossing the nortkerly sids-line. 10 enters
the Non-oon olidated claim. snd. as the
lode dips to the north, II also dips under
that claim. That Ia 20 say. for some dis
tnnce along the apex in the Amy claim q
line drawn Ht any point down on the true
dip lat right angles with the strike would
uaas into the Non-consolidAted claim.
The question wac. ghether the owners OF
tho Amy possessed any extra lateral right
on the Lode beneath the suriaee OF the Non
consolidated; aud II go, how that right was
bounded. he three answers to this ones
tion are a. follows:
FIRST. Judge De Wolfe decided that ths
Amy had such a right, and Tint Il wal
ounded by vertical Ilune drawn at right
nDglea TO the cou Sc Of she lois 40 the point
where Is crossed the side line, hut Limited
also IN depth by plane drawn through the
essterly end line OF the Amy. Tnis de-
eision. made several years uRo. ! have dis
cuGeed at somo length IN nv "a OF on End
Lines and Side Lines la the United States
Mining Law and in the EuRin eering and
Mining Journal OF Jan. 20 and Feb. ?
1889.
second. Judge DsWitt, in the supreme
court Of Montana. subsequently held that
the Amy had tie extra lateral right, but
that 10 was 30 be bounded by q vertical
plane drawn through the point Of crossing,
n allel TO the located end lines OF the Am
claim. This view ignored the fact that
unless the course OF tue lode, upon which
tue Amy claim had been located. crossed
the nominal end lines of the location,
those lines would not be true end lines al
all, and could not have legal effect AZ
such.
"Ibirj. Justice Field. in the United
states supreme court now sets aside both
theae views. aud declares that as the Amy
lode apex osses the two o posiie and par
allel side lines of the location, they
Rrs in fsct toe end lines. no mat
ter what other lines may have been 90 de-
nominated. and that ths rights Of the Amy
owner are cut of by vertical pssnes drawn
through these true end line; in other
words that tue Amy possesses, under the
surface OF the Non-con solidated claim, no
right whatever.
This conclusion is stated with the clear
ness and force which characterize all the
opinions OF Justice Field IL Is in strict
ha mong with the deiverances Of she same
high authority in two Leading cases,
namely. the Flagstaff and the Elgin case.
In the frat of these Il WAS plainly laid
down that whea located lode apex
crosses two op. cate and parallel boundar-
les OF the location those boundaries are 20
be deemed the end lines of the location,
whatever they may be called. In the latter
case 10 was held that a location 40 made
that tho course of tle lode does not Cross
any two parallel opposite boundary lines
has no true end lines and no extra-lateTal
rights; aud 10 WAS further declared that d. .
feets IN the location cou.d not he cured,
after the issue OF patent, ly Judicial Tecti-
Goation Of boundary lines. or by the draw
ing OF new once. he court said Ia this
connection; IL the hrst locator will not OF
can not make ths * loTatious necessary %
ascertain the true course of the vein. and
draws his end huss ignornntly, he must
bear the cons. Qurnoes.'
Ate quotinr these words Justice Field
adds tho following emphstio Comment
which, IL may be hoi ed. will put sn end "a
many ingenious attempts at ludiclA modi
I fication of boundaries: Il he court cannot
becoms a locator for tho mining claimant
nd do for him what be alone should do FOL
himself. The most that the court can do
I where the lines are drawn inaccuratsly Hnt
1 irfegulailr. 10 10 give 90 the miner aucl
I rights Ms b q i'm erfeot location warrants
/ under the statute. IL cannot relocate hil
claim and make new side lines or end lines
lie must stand upon his own location and
can tske Only What ~ Will give him IN
der the law
"ILis decision IL so clearly foFeshadowsd
/ by the RIO ones | have mentioned Abov,
that It can scarcely DO called novel. Ys
l both Of those prior cases wee before thu
I two courts which decided this case below
and they managed somshow 20 satisfy
themselves that their views wee not IL
conf CT with those OF the United Staiei
sup enc cou {. This reitsrstion of princi-
4 ples already LAID down comes therefore with
a tmelin, 81 and eonclusiveness equivalent
IN effect to novelty. IL was necessary u II
wholesome; and IL ought to b. welcome q
those who desire to see hKsd and simpl,
principles of construction prevail IN de.
pa tment 40 full Of perple1ites as the Ad-
minu6t alton OF the UaIted states MINING
laW. Nothing can make us thankful foi
that Law or hHp uudsr ~; hut We oan fee
gratitude for evrrJ such clear note OF Ruid-
Snoe - justice Field has given heretofor,
and now gives again"
The Hodsrn Way
Commands itself 10 the we'll formed 90 ID