Blackfoot news. (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1891-1902, 1897-06-19

vantage TO the owners OF tunnels.
The court, in its opinion rendered IN
the case of the Enterprise MINING
Company, appellant, against the RICO
Aspen Consolidated Mining Company
ct al, on a writ of certiorari 10 the
United State Circuit Court OF Appears
for the Eighth circuit. said:
This case involves the construction
of section 1923 of the revised statutes.
which reads as follows: Where a
tunnel is run for the development OF 4
vein or lode, or for the discovery OF
mines. the owners of such tunnel shall
have the right of possession OF III
veins or lodes within 5000 feet from
the face of such tunnel on the line
thereof. not previously known 10 exist.
discovered in such tunnel, 10 the same
extent as il discovered from the sur
face; and locations on the line OF sucn
tunnel, or veins or lodeS not appearing
on the surface made by other parties
after the commencement or the tunnel,
and while the same is being prosecuted
with reasonable diligence, shall be IN
valid, but failure 10 prosecute the work
ON the tunnel for six months shall be
considered as IN abandonment OF the
right TO all undiscovered veins on the
line of such tunnel"
The opinion or the court. which was
in favor OF the defendants, was deliv-
cred by Justice Brewer, and is as fol-
lows:
1t viii be observed that 50 far as the
mere location of the two claims, YES
tai and Jumbo No. 2. the former was
prior in time TO the latter. and would.
If there were no other facts, give prior
ity of right 10 the ore within the limits
of the conflicting territory. The tun-
mel was, however. located some eight
or nine months before the discovery
and location OF the yestal claim, and
the statute gives 10 the owners of such
tunnel the right TO "all veins or lodes
within 1900 feet from the face Of such
tunnel on the line thereof. not preyi.
ously known 10 exist" By virtue Of
this section. therefore. the right of the
defendant to this vein was prior 70
that of the plaintiffs TO the mineral ir
their claim. In this respect the Circuii
Court Of Appeals agreed. The mat
tiers in dispute are the extent Of
that right and the effect Of a failure
to adverse the application for ap
peIlant. The right to the vein discoy
cred in the tunnel IS by statute de
clared to be ITO the same extent as i
discovered from the surface
IL discovered from the surface, TIL
d~iscoyerer might under revised stat
utes. section 232O. claim 100 feet Ii
length along the vein or lode" Tn
; clear import of the language. then. /
: TO give to the tunnel owner discover
: ing the vein in the tunnel a right {
J appropriate 100 feet in length Of tina
|, vein. When must he indicate the par
! ticular 1.jO0 feet which he desires {
claim? Counsel for plaintiffs conten,
that it should be done when in the frs
! instance it is first located. and that /
e no specification Is then made the line o
the tunnel Is to be taken as dividin
the extent Of the claim to the vein. S
: that the tunnel owner would be er
titled TO only 80 feet on either side o
the tunnel, while counsel for defendan
insist that he need not do 50 until tn
actual discovery Of the vein in the tuI
mel. We think the defendants cour
n sci are right. In order to make a lOca
ton there must be a discovery at Ieas
n that IS the general rule laid down i
!, the statute. Section 1920 provides
, But no location Of a mining clair
= shall be made until discovery Of th
7 vein or lode within the limits Of iii
.e claim located" The discovery in tn
tunnel Is Ike a discovery on the SUI
face. Until n is made there Il n
v right to locate a claim In respect to til
vein. and the time to determine wheF
. n how ii shall be located arises onI
: upon the discovery, whether such di
?, coyery be made on the surface or |
the tunnel. The case Of Erhard V
Boaro (113. u. s. SD IS not in poin
lie for there the preliminary notice. whic
was made upon a discovery from III
surface. simply claimed '.1,5O0 feet 3
, this mineral bearing lode" withot
further specifications as to boundaris
= or direction. and 1t was held that VIZ
equivalent to a claim for 100 feet
each direction from the discover
shaft
. IL may be true, as counsel claims
tE<1 bis construction Of the stain
y gives the tunnel excayator some n,
/ vantages. Surely 1t is not strange tn:
te Congrc@5 deemed it wise TO offer son
Ir Inducements for running a tunnel #
at to the side Of a mountain. It II
l. same time 1t placed specific limits Z
the rights which the tunnel own,
Z, could acquire. He could acquire I
X veins which had Heretofore been nj
L covered from the surface. His rig
lie reached only to blind veins. az In,
$. may be called, veins not known TO q
s. ist, and not discovered from the su
h face before he commenced his tunn.
- Ii required reasonable diligence IN n
Z, prosecution of his work. II placed
limit in length 5000, beyond which
/. might not go in his search for vel
to and acquire any rights under his tn
n mel location, and the veins to which
T. might acquire any rights were tho
IL which the tunnel itself crossed. S1,
IL Is the import Of the letter to viii,
d counsel refer, from Commission
- Drummond, of date September .
70 1872 Gland Office report. 1872, page 4
3 CopDs land owner. 1907
1t may be also noticed that in this |,
as ter the commissioner affirmed the rio
)r, OF location on either side Of the tnun
lie In these words: when n lode
n struck or discovered for the first fin
by running a tunnel, the tunnel owne
have the option Of recording the
~. claim Of 100 feet, all on one sid
II. the point Of discovery or intersectio
US or partly on one and partly on the Of
a er side thereof"
er We hold, therefore. that the right