The herald., 1897-11-05
is NOT MINERAL LAND
AND FARMERS ARE ENTITLED
TO POSSESSION
The Famous Old Claim of the Santa
Clara Mining Association Is
Knocked Out

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4.-(By As
sociated Press Leased Wire to
Herald.) A decision was render
ed today by Commissioner Her.
man of the general land Office in
reference to a mining contention in
California, known as the Santa Clara
Mining Association, or Guadaloupe
nline in contest with various agricul-
tural claimants, the mine being situated
in Santa Clara county, Cal, and claimed
by the Mineral Association, the plain
tiffs, as a portion of the Guadaloupe
quicksilver mining claim. The min0ral
claimants contend for the whole as one
compact body, while the agricultural
claimants claim in separate tracts. The
defendants are all settlers upon the
land and contest this claim and submit
proofs as to the agricultural character
of the land. This land fourteen years
ago was decided by the Secretary of the
Interior to be mineral, but the claim of
the mineral contestants being subse-
quently declared invalid, the agricul
tural claimants renewed, in 1898, the
contest, which has since been waged.
The Commissioner now affirms the
decision Of the local land Office at San
Francisco upon the facts and holds the
lands to be agricultural.
The commissioner, passing upon the
question of law involved, says: "A min
eral survey does not segregate the land
involved from the public domain, and
the character of public land. whether
agricultural or mineral, is open to ques-
ton until title thereto passes. A defeated
agricultural claimant may subsequent
ly, upon allegations that the mine has
been abandoned because worked out, or
that further developments have shown
the particular tract to be worthless as
mineral, initiate a new contest.
"a decision holding land to be mineral
is only res adjudicata as between the
parties to controversy as modified by
the rule stated. 1t cannot be held to be
binding upon strangers to the record as
serting to the contrary. The Santa
Clara Mining association has not been,
until contest was initiated, valid
claimant of record. The only record
which in any way affected the status Of
these lands was the adjudication which
stamped it as mineral in character.
"The agricultural claimant of record
had a right to proceed to make final
proof upon their entries, although they
were required by the regulations to
make out an affirmative showing as to
the character of the land. The decision
of August "a, 1885, as to the mineral
character of the land was not a finding
that the Santa Clara Mining associa-
tion was entitled to patent; that com"
pany had yet to conform to certain re-
ouirements to enable the department to
judicially determine whether the COM
pany had complied with the mining
rules and regulations"
These proofs were never furnished. It
has been the practice in ex-parte lode
claims to accept discovery as sufficient
proof that all the land covered by the To-
cation is mineral in the absence of allie
cations to the contrary. Where it is
alleged, however, that any portion there
of embraced within a claim under the
agricultural laws is non-mineral, evi-
dence may be submitted in that issue
and if the allegation is proved the min
eral claim will be rejected to that extent.
The rule is found to be that in land
classed as mineral in character mineral
must be actually found thereon and a
mere theory as to it's existence will not
be accepted as establishing its mineral
character. The existence Of mineral on
neighboring tracts cannot be accepted
as evidence conclusive OF the mineral
character Of the tract in controversy.
Citing former department decision.
the commissioner says land is mineral
where minerals have been found and the
evidence is of such character that a
person of ordinary prudence would be
justified in the further expenditure of
his labor and means with a reasonable
prospect Of success in developing val
liable mine.