Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1895-02-15
AGAINST THE STATE.
MCBRIDE is SUSTAINED BY THE
COMMISSIONER.

The Case VIII Now 10 20 th. Secre.
tary OF the Interior, and May h,
Court.
The local land Office last Friday re
ceived the decision OF the Commits
sioner of the General Land Office al
tirming the decision of the Register
and Receiver, which is against the
State.
The contest involves valuable
school section in Tacoma, which is al
legged by Mcbride to be of mineral
character. Referring to the specifica
tons of error filed by the appellant
the Commissioner says:
First, there was no error in casting
the burden of proof upon the appel
liant. Legal application for land, duly
received and of record, operates to seq
regate the land applied for, and the
burden OF proof is upon whoever at
tacks it.
Second. the letter of instructions
from the Secretary of the Interior to
the local land officers fixed the time
within which evidence regarding min
eral character of land should be OBJ
tanned, and it would have been inn
proper to have considered evidence
obtained from explorations made by
the appellant at other times and I'M
der other circumstances.
"Third, it was improper to con-
slider evidence offered on the part of
the appellee, obtained by tests made
at other than the time indicated by
the Secretary of the Interior; hence
the evidence OF F. d. Wilson, ]. w.
Rigney and, perhaps, some others, was
improperly considered, and will be
ignored.
Fourth, evidence offered for the
purpose Of proving that the claim was
salted' rests on the testimony of J. NJ.
Bloom, which is to the effect that Nc
Bride arranged with him to salt the
claim, and is denied by Mcbride, and
must be adjudged as not proved. The
fact that, at the instance of Mcbride,
Bloom agreed to do so, under such
circumstances, could have no bearing,
standing by itself. even were the agree.
ment conceded. Further, it cannot
be denied that it is not at all unusual
to find more than one kind Of gold in
the same mining location, so this fact
proves nothing.
"Fifth, the allegation of error in
refusing to consider the evidence of C.
B. Zabriskie il not we'll taken. He
was called by the appellant TO prove
e conversation with another person in
relation to sailing claims. 1t would
make no difference what conversations
were held with any one, being strang-
ers to the record, Mcbride would not
be bound thereby.
Sixth. regarding the alleged error
in not having considered separately
each location as to the results OBJ.
tanned from the local tests made is a
point we'll taken, as q general princi-
pie, but, as both parties in this case
proceeded on the assumption that the
deposits in the respective locations
approximate uniformity of value, &C.
ton in not considering the results
separately will not OBJECT the case"
The specification that it was error
to have found the land in controversy.
or any portion OF it, mineral in charac-
ter is treated at considerable length,
and the evidence OF a number of wit
nesses is reviewed, and the opinion
concludes:
From a former decision of the
Secretary of the Interior as to the
feasibility Of procuring water, the
feasibility of obtaining q dump, and
the right OF way, and other collateral
matters, the Commissioner concludes
that, even If the average value of the
| six locations made is but 7 cents per
cubic yard, the claim may be operated
at profit, which conclusion renders
the land mineral in character, within
the meaning of the statute. The con-
testant has failed to overcome the
presumption attaching to the mineral
application, and the decision OF the
local land officers, OF November II,
last, in favor of Mcbride, is affirmed,
and the contest dismissed"
The estimated value of the land is
100000. The State has expended
$25 600 in fighting McBride's claim
and will Immediately appeal to the
Secretary of the Interior and take the
matter to the Supreme Court if neces-
sary.
Superlor Court.