Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1897-06-24

A Correspondent OF tho Red River
''Ilecord" Give Some Good
Pointers.
From the Red RIYlr RECORD

y
peared In last weeks issue, OF the Re-
cord calls for some notice, as It has
served to mislcad many persons as to
the real status OF the mineral claim
ants on the Rio Colorado Grant.
The commissioner, in answer 10 Mr.
jones' enquiry, wires In substance
that ''ao valid rights a be acquired
by location or otherwise to lands with
Ia the disputed boundaries" OF the
Grant prior 20 its restoration to the
public domain.
In a broad sense, what the commits
sioner says IS substantially true as for
explanation OF what he terms the
"policyn of the General Land OHce;
| bet It is not necessarily or essentially
true where, as in the present case,
hundreds of miners have located claims,
are in actual possession, and shall con-
tinue in possession Of the land until
the reservation now clouding the title
of the U. s shall be removed. Strictly
and technically speaking, perhaps no
illegal" rights are acquired by a min
II Q location on land temporarily re-
served By the United States, bnt II
the claimant remains in posses.
sion Of his lode, after discovery
and location, until the s~o.called
"reslora,ion" of the land to the public
| domain, he acquires an ''equitable'
| right which will amply protect him
from danger, either from the United
| States or from subsequent s.ju mpers''
or trespassers. The equitable right
or title which the miner has acquired
by virtue of his discovery and location
on the unconfirmed Rio Colorado grant
| will ripen into a legal title upon the
final rejection Of the grant CLAIM, at
| which time the miners may doubly
| protect themselves by Relocating their
| claims If they so desire. No third per-
son can come in between them and the
United States, on the cancellation OF
the existing grant, especially II the
prior party perfects his claim as above
indicated. Therefore, whilst In theory,
| the miner now on the grant may be
70, araed az ,hont 81 prec,se legaI
status, be enjoys in fact u practical
position Of advantage from which be
cannot be dislodged except by his own
neglect and forfeiture. Iu actral
practice when the alleged grant claim
% hnaiiY uoe'aeu :"
goVeihmene s'a.' 9'yy ,.ss,
ogn'1e .ue oiA' .ops
"no' III INC .a~n
possession y sno - -,
mene .'Po,icy aoso - s'S.aeas
.e'tei ~ VA oone' .
10 .ue lace "a .no neo'y -,
n'Aiug' ~ fannt - :. T.
o.alul0 noa rrsnnd
a1suol ps~sa,,ho sI,aeaJ rran, ,;,le
1850, ~ ,;ch,s 80 sha r;nar,
ceaoes n,,n a,taah ard
~ n1a,sra -, was
po. a,a ~ so,,tah,a sota,
oe'o.' .'im .aoa haron,e n,orcad
80 81, ,ocal nossessorv tile. II the
e-issasnt exeSc;srs ordinary diligence
r. e or;no;n,e rpSnin0 throuoh thu
49, ~; land noIicv of the IJnitec
S,a,as 70 nro,act Mt The proper tim,
~ r;ah,s ~ those who. in good faith
have initiated claims upon its title
clouded territory.
The practical workiBg Of this princi
ple has been seen on a large scale In 3
great many Instances elsewhere in th'
west, and il is q familiar, everyday
affair in the smaller land Office adjndi
cations. To illustrate. When two o
more persons settle on an entered
tract of public land, expecting tn
same to be cancelled later, and eacl
ose ANXIOUS to be preferred as the lega
lapplicant. The government will inform
them that no legal rights are acquired
bv their respective settlements eithe
as against the entryman or the Unite'
States. as the land is in q reserve'
state. But as Don as the entry !
cancelled, the land department. o
|, once ascertains which Of the partie
was the first and prior settler, where
upon be is given the land, and th
rest are dismissed forthwith. Th
lidea is that none of the parties coul
get any strict legal rights be
fore the cancellation. but that all 9
them acquired equitable rights, eac
as against the other, by virtue OF thei
actual settlement; and the maxim 9
the law in such cases is that she ths
lis prior in point of time is first
point OF right" Though q homei
Illustration, the foregoing will max