The Anaconda standard., 1895-11-21

and shaft No. 2" 4x5 feet. 2 feet deep.
So that II will be seen that on each
claim some work had been done. The
evidence shows that there were no
windlasses or houses or any other Inn
provements or conspicuous place or
places on the claims. The ground II
shown to be broken and mountainous.
with rocky hills and many large bowl
ers scattered over the surface. There
are two or more Travelled roads on the
land. running In different directions IL
Is not definite as TO whether they
traverse each claim or not. but they
are roads that are constantly travelled
in reaching the villages or mining
camps surrounding Butte city, TO
which the land In controversy 10 In
close proximity.
The plats and notices required to be
posted were tackled in open boxes about
two feet square and one foot deep,
and were put upon the ground with
rocks around them for their support
and on top to keep them In place. On
the Priscilla this box was placed $50
feet northwesterly from the southeast
corner. Between the box and the dis
covery shaft was a ridge about so feet
high, the discovery shaft being about
1000 feet westerly from where the box
was placed. On the Georgiana lode the
box was placed about 200 feet west OF
of a rocky hill. or butte. about 40 feet
from the top. which was covered with
bowfders. some of them four feet high.
some OF which were In front OF the box.
The box on the Dorcas was about $50
feet south Of the discovery shaft, on
the side of q hill on level ground. ris-
ing little from the shaft. There were
large rocks or bowlders all over the
ground In this vicinity.
Naffhar nf fha notices were DOgted at
either of the discovery shafts, nor were
they placed on or near either OF the
travelled roads. They were not fast
ened on trees or otherwise placed at
an elevation above the level Of the
ground so that they could be seen by
those going over the ground. or so that
they might not be ohscured by the
snow that Is shown to have fallen in
that region at the season of the year
when they were posted. On the con-
trary, / am strongly impressed with
the belief that there was a studied ef-
fort on the part of the applicants to
avoid a compliance with the laws in
posting the notices In a conspicuous
place on the land. In fact. there are
several incidents disclosed by the testi-
mony, which were probably not prop
erly at issue. but which were. never
theless, brought out. and which the
government may avail itself OF In
proceeding like this. which is calculat-
ed to impress one with the belief that
these applicants were anxious to avoid
publicity in making their entry as
much as was consistent with color
able compliance with the law.
1t Is difficult, pehaps. to lay any gen.
eral rule as to what should be con-
strued to be q conspicuous place on
mining claim. 1t is a matter OF COM
mon knowledge that they are generally
located In mountainous regions, where
from any given point but comparative
ly a small portion of the claim may
be seen. But ther must. from the very
nature OF things. be an initial point.
both physical and local. in every min
ing claim. and that Is the discovery
shaft. Without this there can be no
legal location, as all rights of every
nature are based upon a discovery OF
mineral In the absence of all other
improvements. as in this case, IL
would seem perfectly natural that any
one going upon a mining claim for
any purpose for which the government
would be interested. would go to the
discovery shaft. 1t would seem as IL
this initial point would be the first to
attract the attention of any one in
vestigating the land. and in the absence
of all other improvements. would GER
tainly be the most conspicuous on the
claim. In digging shaft a dump is
necessarily created which shows the
handiwork of man. 1t may be said
that the discovery shaft may be located
in an obscure place. This Is true, yet.
nevertheless. IL 1t be the only improve
ment on the claim. II Is certainly, in
contemplation of law. and as a physical
fact as well. more conspicuous for the
purpose of conveying notice to the
world. than 'fbowlder-drifted hills, away
from travelled trails or roads," would
be.
1t is evident that posting the plat
and notice of application for patent in
a conspicuous place on the ground was
one of the three methods. to be pur-
sued simultaneously. by which all per-
sons were to have notice of the inten-
ton of the applicant to procure title to
| the land (see Byrne VS.. Slausen. 20 l..
d.. 43) Now II II be shown that those
| claiming adverse rights did not ac-
| tually have notice Of the pending appli-
cation, so that they could protect their
| interests in the manner provided by
| law. and in addition II Is shown that
either of the three methods Of con-
veying notice had not been compiled
with. 1t follows that an entry should
| not be permitted. For instance, IL the
publication is not made In the proper
| newspaper and adverse claimants are
| thereby deprived of their rights. the
department will REQUIRE new publica-
tion. IL the local land officers failed
to post a notice in their office. the en-
| try could not be perfected In the pres
ence OF adverse claimants who did not
have notice. The same rule should ap-
! ply, In my judgment. where the notice
| is not posted in a aconspicuous place on
| the land. This is the only act of the
| applicant to convey notice. The local
| land office directs what paper II shall
be published In. and posts the notice
! IN their Office. II the applicant fails to
blame but himself.
| I do not think there was a compli-
ance with the statute by the applicants
| In posting the notice on the claim, and.
| therefore. reverse YOUR Office decision.
! and confirm that Of the local Office.
I call attention to the fact that there
has not been a compliance with the