The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-07-30
THAT QUARTZ CLAIM Was SALTED.
Clever Trick of a Sierra County Min
ing Claimant
But Land Officials Fraser and Gardner
Inspected the Land and EX-
posed the Fraud.

Register Thomas Fraser and Receiver
Charles F. Gardner of the United States
Land Office in this city have decided the
| case of A. p. Harris and others against
Theodore Wayman, involving the char
acter Of the north half of lot of the
southwest quarter of section Is, township
Is north, range east, NJ. d. M, In
Sierra County, in favor of Wayman.
Harris and others were lode claimants
and mineral contestants.
Wayman on September %, 1894, filed
his sworn statement for the forty acres OF
land. alleging it to be valuable timber
land, and applied to purchase the same
under the provisions of the Act Of June
3, 1878. On December II, 1894, Wayman
appeared with two witnesses to submit
final proof, and was informed that pro-
test had been filed by Harris and the
other contestants, alleging the land filed
upon by Wayman to be mineral in char
acter and more valuable for mineral and
mining than for any other purpose.
This protest was corroborated by sew
eral parties, who, together with the pro-
teStantS, had executed it before Justice
of the Peace. There being no evidence of
the official character Of the Justice. Way
!
| test on that ground. The motion was
denied and citations for hearing ordered
to issue, returnable before the Register
and Receiver on the 18th Of last January.
| The testimony was submitted, and on the
lst of this month they personally viewed
the land in question. In their decision,
the Register and Receiver say:
"a careful examination of the testi-
mony given at the hearing and applying
| the same to the situation of the land, as
disclosed to US by personal observation
! and inspection of the same, compels the
! conclusion in our minds that prOtestants
| (Harris and others) have totally failed to
support or establish their case, or any of
the claims or charges made in the orig
inal protest filed, or supplemental and
amended protest executed by Harris on
the day of the hearing, which latter was
denied admission to the record for the
reason therein stated by us.
1.-THE testimony of contestant, Harris,
and his two witnesses is very general
| There Is no evidence taken from the
| official record of Sierra County, nor from
the records on any mining district in that
county, that Harris, or any of his CO.
professionals, ever made valid location
| on the tract in controversy, whereas on
| page Ii of the transcript Harris testitleS
to claiming the land under both quartz
and gravel mining locations, and that his
personal knowledge OF the land began in
| 1890.
IA portion of the alleged quartz ledge
might be on the northeast quarter OF
section 10, or on the patented homestead
| of Harris, but there is certainly no ledge
| of quartz rock in place to be seen on any
portion of the land in controversy, we
! having carefully searched for the same
all over the surface thereof, and at ex-
cavations, old and new, thereon. and
failed to discover the slightest trace OF
any such vein or lode testified to by Har-
ris and his witeSses.
1.-The nearest approach to any quartz to
be found on the tract in dispute was
some fragments OF quartz rock evidently
broken from pieces of quartz on ledge
elsewhere and carried onto this tract and
distributed for short distance with the
very evident intent of having 1t serve the
purpose of q visible outcrop. At several
shallow excavations. and III the sides
thereof, pieces of quartz were to be seen.
apparently having been driven into the
soft earth with a hammer or pick, and
some Of these fragments had been struck
80 hard that they were broken and split.
"There is no ledge of quartz in place to
be seen, no fence and no gravel worthy OF
the name on any portion of the tract. On
the northeast corner OF the tOrty-acre
tract near to and along Grizzly Canyon,
are to be seen the traces of some shallow
surface placer mining, evidently done
and abandoned many years ago.
Contestant Harris was observed by US
on our way up near the land in contro-
versy. He knew of our presence and the
purpose for which we had made che Jour
ney, but did not come upon the land, nor
offer to show US any Of his alleged min
eral discoveries, or any of the alleged ag-
ricultural land in this forty-acre tract
testified to by him.
''The testimony of the timber claim
ant and his witnesses. given at the
hearing, is consistent and corresponds
with the testimony submitted in his final
proofs. 1t is to the effect that the tract
contains valuable growth of timber that
can be converted into marketable pro-
duct In the way of wood and mining tim
bers and material, and that there are
mines in the immediate vicinity, creating
a demand and market for such products.
1.-The contestants testimony does not
deny this condition of things, but simply
attempts to quality and modify the clai IN
set up by the timber entryman as to the
quantity and quality of the timber stand
| ing on the land.
''Our personal observation and inspec-
| ton leads us to conclude that the testi-
mony in support Of its timber character
| is in accordance with the facts.''