The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-02-17
LAND CASE DECIDED
The Mineral Entry Of W. L. HOge
ct al. Holds Good.
AT HEAD OF BIRCH STREET
Volumes of Testimony Has Been
Taken and Submitted to the
Helena Land office. With
the Result Stated.

fIOtn June - W <iut doN O. etoNAiaC'S
was taken before Notary Public Nj. p.
Fitzpatrick. in the matter of f. o. Fer
rell ct al VS.. w. L. Hoge ct al. land
case involving title to tract of land
adjacent to Anaconda. Many witness
es were examined and the testimony
taken covered several hundred sheets
of typewriter manuscript. The plain
tiffs were represented by Attorneys
Duffy and English, and the defendants
by Col. T. O'Leary.
The decision of the Helena off1ce,
which was received yesterday. is in IA
vor of the defendants, whose mineral
entry is held good. The decision re-
views the case from the beginning, and
is as follows:
William L. Hoge ct al made Mineral
Entry No 1901 January 6, 1890. on
Feb. IL, 1891 T.. o. Terrell and II others
filed a protest against said entry, al
leging that they were lawful owners or
IL acres of said placer claim; that the
entrymen are not authorized to obtain
patent for a large body of land as
placer claim, which has no deposit or
precious mineral. but valuable only In
a small portion thereof as stone quar-
~; that the claimants had not acted in
good faith in that they are seeking 10
obtain title to land as a placer mine
tn&l mas Ndlut Olly dS puiihihk eAeNSf
owing to its contiguity to the town OF
Anaconda BY letter M of Sept. ?,
1891, hearing was ordered and accord
ingly had. AS a result of this hearing,
this office held that ii was incumbent
on the entrymen to show that valuable
deposits exist on each 10 acres and that
inasmuch as such was not shown, the
entry should be Cancelled, except as 10
10 acres surrounding one excavation In
which limestone had been discovered.
The claimants appealed from this de-
cision, and by letter IN" Sept ., lS92'
the same was reversed by the
honorable commissioner of the
general land office and the pro-
test dismissed. The protestants
thereupon appealed to the honorable
secretary of the interior, and by de-
partmental decision of Feb. IL, 1894 (ls
L. D., 81, il was held that there must
be a discovery of mineral on each ~
acres in a placer location of 16O acres
made by an association; and such To-
cation of that amount, based upon
single discovery, is void except as to
the 20 acres Immediately surrounding
said discovery" (Syllabus). Accord
ingly NJ e. No. 2091 was held for can
collation.. but the claimants were per-
mitted TO make location, In accordance
with this decision, of 20 acres in the inn
mediate vicinity of their original dis
covery. A motion for review of this
departmental decision was filed by the
claimants, and under date of Dec. "a.
1894, the Hon. Secretary Of the Interior,
in passing upon each section held: II
see no reason TO disturb the holding
made in the case under review, and
the same is therefore adhered to-" In
the motion for review, however, II was
asked that opportunity be afforded the
locators TO make further showing, as
under the rules in force at the time of
H.. 80 - nAw arrl.,
cry within the limits of the claim was
considerd sufficient. This request was
granted and departmental decision of
Feb. ~, 1894. so far modified as to al
low the locators to maxi an additional
showing at a hearing to be ordered for
that purpose.
A hearing in compliance with this de-
cision was ordered by letter IN" Jan.
3. 1895. the claimants being allowed GO
days in which to apply for the same.
March 8. 1895. application for hearing
was filed and notice isued same date.
May Is, 1895. being appointed as the
date of the hearing. April %, 1895. new
notice issued. fixing June 25. 1895, for
the hearing. the testimony to be sub
mitted to be taken before NJ. j. Fitz-
Patrick. notary public, at Anaconda,
Montana, June 20. 1895. BY stipulation
of counsel the hearing was continued
until August s, 1895.
decision OF req.
1894, held that Terrell ct al. were not
adverse claimants such as would defeat
the mining claim, IL authorized by law,
and the present inquiry is concerned
only in the matter of a further show
ing by the claimants of discovery of a
valuable mineral deposit upon each 20
acres of the Horse Shoe quarry placer
as under the rulings in force at the
time Of making location, a single dis
covery was deemed sufficient. 1t is not
necessary to show that a discovery was
made on each 20 acres at the date of
the location of the placer claim: proof
of subsequent discovery will meet the
requirements of the order allowing a
further showing"
For the purpose of showing a dis
covery of a valuable mineral deposit
upon each 20 acres of NJ. L. No. 209l,
the claimants had a survey made di-
viding the entry into 20 acre tracts.
said survey being represented by the
plat filed in evidence and marked "Ex-
hibit A" On this plat the several 20
acre subdivisions have been designated
by different names for convenience of
reference and II is frequently referred
TO throughout the investigation.
AS to the Toe-Calk. Quarry. Horse
Shoe. Spring Gulch and Lime subdi-
visions OF this entry referring to Ex-
hibit Al ]. II. Harper and George III.
Linsley. of the claimants, and the for
mer the surveyor OF the claim. testify
that discoveries of lime or sand rock
were made on each of these subdivIs-
ions at the time of the location. Ern-
est Lutz and Charles Gallagher testify
to having made like discoveries prior
TO the hearing, on the Lookout and
Capitol subdivisions. On the Capitol
subdivision superior quality Of lime
rock in place was found and on the
Lookout rock impregnated with iron
valuable as a fiux in smelling opera
tons. The testimony of claimants
with reference 10 these seven subdi-
visions stands uncontroverted, and is
not denied or questioned by protest
ants.
The volume of testimony submitted
Is devoted mainly TO the Heelcalk sub
division, upon the northern portion Of
which some of the protestants and
others have constructed houses and ara