The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-11-12

supreme court said in its decision in
the Amy-Silversmith case. on page 22s,
u52 L. s.: The most that the court
can do, where the lines are drawn in
accurately and irregularly. Is to give
to the miner such rights. as MS imper-
fect location warrants, under the stat
ute, that Is to say. We can give to the
miner, or rather the law, as We con-
strue IL. gives to the miner, as much
length OF strike. no matter how deep
he goes upon the dip. as he has length
OF apex; and he loses in strike
and dip only what he has failed to
get in apex. That Is what the district
court. In this case, following the Amy
Silversmith case. ninth Montana, ac-
complished. 1t gave to the Niagara the
ore on the dip east OF the point where
the apex and strike crossed the south
side line OF the Niagara. This is what
the circuit court OF appeals did in Ty-
Ter Mining company VS.. Sweeny. "a
Federal. 2s4. and 81 Federal. 557. This
Is what the circuit court of the district
OF Colorado did in Del Monte Mining
company VS.. New York Mining comp
any, sc Federal. 212. This Is what we
understand the United States supreme
court suggested in Last Chance Mining
company VS.. Tyler Mining company.
157 U. s.. $50. that 1t might do.
The language OF Judge Hawley and
Judge Hallett in those decisions is very
apt when they suggest that II the apex
and strike broke off abruptly at the
side line. would any one contend thar
the dip could not be followed within
the end lines? And why should II not
also as well be followed, IL the strike.
instead OF physically ceasing to exist
at all. simply ceased TO further exist
within the Niagara lines? We can
think of no good reason which would
allow the owner TO follow the vein on
the dip In the supposititious cases and
deny him that right in the actual case.
In the Amy-Silversmlth case we spoke
OF the end line plane taking effect at
the point where the strike IN fact ended.
BY this use of the word end line per-
haps we gave opportunity for the con-
tentiOn that we were moving an end
line and locating Il in a place other
than that fixed by the locator. We en-
deavored to make II clear that we were
not moving an end line, but we were
simply giving II effect at the only point
where II could operate. But. as Judge
Hallett says. II there Is any magic"
in the word cline" we will not use that
word.
or course we understand the differ
ence between the doctrine OF the Uni
ted States supreme court. which COM
mences with the Flagstaff case, and
received its last treatment in the Amy
Sllversmith case, and our theory which
we held in the AmYSilversmith case.
The supreme court doctrine seems TO
be that the side lines which are mark
ed as such on the ground. namely. the
1900 feet lines, as the eide lines. and
the 600 feet lines as the end lines, are
not in fact the side lines and end lines;
but what are side lines and the end
lines is 10 be determined by the subse-
qeunt demonstration OF where the
apex and strike cross the locator's
lines. The trouble with the theory Is
that II leaves the determination OF the
boundaries to subsequent development.
which may require years. and II calls
that an end line which was never To-
Gated as such. and II makes the side
lines 900 feet long only when the stat
ute says they may be 1900 feet. and
makes the end lines 1900 feet long
when the statute says they shall not
be over 900, and II gives a surface OF
more than 800 feet on each side OF the
center OF the lode. We cannot be per-
suaded TO think that this Is the intent
OF the statute. As we noted In the
Amy-Silversmith case. the difficulties
OF this construction did not fully ap-
pear in the Flagstaff and Argentine
cases. where, as we understand. the
strike and apex OF the vein were prac-
tically at right angles 10 the length OF
the location. % Mont. 57f) But the
theory meets great difficulty when ap-
DlleQ 10 veins WHICH nave general
course lengthwise OF the location. and
which happen to slip out OF the loca-
ton by a side line before the end line
Is reached.
Again, we fully understand that the
situation in the case at bar and the
Tyler case and the Del Monte case. diff
fer slightly from that OF the Amy-Sll-
versmith case. In the Amy-Silversmith
the vein passed through two side lines.
N The a har and the nfhar
cases. II passes through a side line and
an end line. But we contend that the
same reasoning applies 10 both situa-
tions; that is, that the miner shall
have as much vein in length on the
strike, at all depths to which he may
go on the dip. as he has length of apex
within his surface lines. We cannot
too strongly emphasize our opinion.
even at the expense OF tlresome reiter-
alton, that this Is the intent OF section
2322. Revised Statutes. United States.
and the true Interpretation OF the deci-
sions Hereunder. We believe that this
doctrine should be applied 10 both sit
uations. On the other hand. II the
other doctrine is 10 be applied 20 one
situation. why not 70 both? For II
does not seem to US consistent 20 say
that the dip OF the y-Silversmith
must be cut on at their north side line
and that the Niagara may go beyond
their south side line. simply because
the Niagara vein on its eastward
course on the strike. goes out through
an end line instead OF a side line. But
when We undertake 10 apply the Uni
ted States Flagstaff and Amy-Siiver-
smith doctrine TO the case az bar. we
ind that the Niagara cannot follow its
dip out OF any OF its lines. and II Is cut
down 10 the common law rule OF al
coelum ct ad Orcum. What we contend
for Is a uniform construction Of the
law. a construction which viii give the
vein on the dip to every locator who
has the apex in his location: and not
give IL TO one who has the apex and
withhold II from another who as fully
has the apex: that shall give to II the
Amy-Silversmith and the Niagara as
well. Let US DO this. and make
estates in mines uniform under
the law. This seems 70 US