Arizona republican., 1897-10-14
IMPORTANT IF TRUE.

A Washington dispatch says that Secretary of the Interior Bliss Is about to announce a new ruling re- garding placer locations, namely, that one discovery within the limits of 160 acres entities one individual to location of that area. The state ment is not yet confirmed; but if it be true, the result will be of great benefit to many forms of placer min ing, more especially the drift mines of California.
 As construed by Secretary Bliss's predecessor, the individual was re- quired to make discovery On the twenty acres of placer location he was permitted to take, and a discov- cry demonstrated upon each twenty acre tract included in the placer To- cation of 160 acres; and a location made of such amount of land upon single discovery was void except as to the twenty acres immediately sur rounding it. It is believed that the ruling of Secretary Bliss, if authen tic will tend to lessen expense in the matter of drift mining. Under Sec retary Smiths administration, there was constant trouble by reason of his rulings. Those familiar with Cal ifornia drift mining know that the value of such property lies entirely in gravel beds which are covered deep by volcanic rock. Secretary Smi,h ruled that there must be a discovery of mineral upon each particular claim. Just how to make a discov- cry of mineral upon each particular claim, except at an enormous expense, was, under that ruling, a matter of difficulty to California drift miners Unlike ordinary placer locations, it is impossible for the drift miner to tell just where his claim should be- gin; it is also diaicu1t- to decide whether the valuable gravel will lie deep under one part or another of the volcanic capping. The surface area of such claims is of no value what ever. Costly tunneling for hundreds of feet can alone determine where the gold bearing tunnel of the ancient channel lies. Under Secretary Bliss's alleged ruling the drift miner will have a chance compared, as hereto fore, of eight to one.
 IL is interesting, in this instance, to note that two supreme court de- cisions are in line with the most re- cent assumption. The supreme court of California, in the case of Grego vs. Hirsohbacher, 73 Cal, 1O9-119, says: "It is insisted by the counsel that no location of mineral land is valid unless valuable mineral has been actually discovered on the land before the lccadicn was made. As to placer claims, we find no such con dition in the acts of congress, in the local laws or in the practice of min ers.' In the case of Mcdonald vs. the Montana Wood company, the su- preme court of Montana has held that a single placer discovery within the limits of tract of 160 acres located by an association of eight pers s1ns Is sufficient upon which to base the To- cation of the entire tract. Of course in the granting of patent such state decisions may yield to the dictum of the general land office and it is source of congratulation to placer miners that the department of the in ter.or seems disposed, under the pres ent administration, to take a broader view of these matters than heretofore Much, of course, may he said Tn favor of such governmental rulings, and ar gument could be put up on the gen. eral assumption that because some certain twenty-acre tract within a 160-acre area is mineral in character it could not be inevitably concluded that similar adjoining tracts were of the same character.
 It would seem as though some one who had some knowledge of practi- cal mining, or who had at some time got outside the governmental build ing at Washington, had access to the attention of the present secretary, who is to be commended for the intel ligent attention bestowed on these matters since his induction into of flee. The last ruling-if ruling it IS comes in direct line and is consis. tent with another ruling which is, that in the case of placer locations $500 expended in work on an entire 160 acres is sufficient to secure be. fore the land department patent to such area.-Mining and Scientific Press.