The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-12-28
REVERSED BY MR.. BLISS
An Important Mining Ruling by
the Interior Department.
VICTORY FOR Mr.. ELLING
The Action of the Helena Land Office
and the Commissioner of the Gen.
eral Land Office Disap-
proved.
Special DISPATCH to the Standard.

Helena, Dec. 27-The Helena land
office has received word from WASH
ington that the secretary of the inter-
ior has reversed this office and the COM
missioner of the general land office in
the case of w. II. Thomas ct al. vs..
Henry Filing. involving the Spratt
mining claim in Madison county. In
February, 1896, Mr.. Filing applied for
a patent to the property. During the
period of publication William IL.
Thomas and the Lillian Mining COM
pany filed a protest and what is known
in mining law parlanee as an adverse.
Subsequently Mr.. Filing made mo-
tion to the Helena land office to dis
miss the adverse for various reasons set
forth. This Office. however. declined To
dismiss the protest on the ground that
the adverse having been filed the same
could not be dismissed until the oues-
ltion of the ownership of the ground
had been settled in the courts. in ac-
cordance with the customs always fol-
lowed in such cases. Filing appealed
from this ruling to the commissioner
of the general land office, but the lat
ter affirmed the decision of this office.
Appeal was then had to Secretary
Bliss and his decision reversing both
lower decisions is announced. His rul-
ing is said to be reversal also OF pre-
vious department rulings in such cases
and will probably prove Of unusual in
terest to mining men. The depart
ment has heretofore held that a CO.
owner Directing to the issue of a pat
ent must protect his rights under the
form of procedure provided for an adj
serse claimant ducy Il. Huzzy lode,
5, i'd, SO, Grampian lode !, i'd, 544 Mon
stor lode. is, i'd, $685. but it is now in
sisted that this rule of the depart
ment has been reversed by the supreme
court in Turner VS.. Sawyer $50 L. S.
blS). This was an action brought by
Sawyer. co-owner, against Turner ct
al TO have Turner declared a trustee
of Sawyer of an interest in the Wal
lace lode. which had been patented to
Turner. The interest of Sawyer grew
out of proceedings somewhat similar to
those in the case at bar so far as ac-
ton was had under section 2324." tThen
follows long extract from the Tur-
ner-Sawyer decision)
Continuing, the secretary says: 1T
is clearly apparent that the court has
here announced doctrine that is the
reverse of that heretofore held by the
department The ruling of the court
is binding upon and must become the
ruling OF the department. II follows,
therefore, that the protest in question
lis not such one as can be recog
nized as an adverse claim neeessitating
the institution of proceedings thereon,
is the duty of the land department, eX-
cepting in controversies referred to the
court by the statute. to determine be-
fore the issue of a patent whether the
applicant is entitled thereto, and the
fact that such controversies may be
Obligated in the courts after the issu-
ance of patent does not relieve the de-
partment of its duty in the premises
Where the matter has already been de-
cided by court of competent jurisdic-
tion the question may arise whether
such a decision is conclusive upon the
department. but without deciding that
question. it seems clear that where the
dispute does not involve the charac-
ter of the land. or the qualifications of
the entry man. or his compliance with
the law under which title is sought
the department may properly accept
and follow the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction determining as
between contending parties their re-
Spective rights and interests in
the land in controversy. The depart
ment is not required to await the bring
dng of suit. because il is not so gro
vided in the statute and because there
DIS no obligation upon either party to
invoke the jurisdiction of a court as
there is in the instance of an adverse
claim. Here suit has been instituted
fin the local court for the purpose of
settling the question Of joint ownership
Jurisdiction of the subject matter may
exist even though not recognized by
sections 1925 and 1926. The land de
partment may therefore we'll await the
result of that suit before giving further
consideration to the protest The said
Grampian lode, Lucy B. Huzzy lode and
all other cases in conflict herewith are
therefore oVerruled