The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-06-06
LAW OF LOCATIONS.
VALUABLE HINTS TO PROTECTORS
OK sTAkIxG CLAIMS.
to Make n Location Good-Gn-
yestors sn Middle States Willing
to Buy Washington Mtning Prop
erty Good Mineral Or Orcas
Island.

Much uncertainty appears TO prevails in
TIE minds OK psosgecsors in regard 70 what
constitutes "A sufficient notice % location
70 hold mining claim under the United
States laws and some communications
have been received by the Post-Intelligef-
Ger on the subject. Some claims on Miller
river and near Index are being jumped
ard the contesting claimants. instead Of
going 20 court, as they ought 10 do. are
trying 10 hold the ciatu.s by right % pos
session. thus involving risk % hioodshed.
As the reaGiest means OF settling these
doubts, tns following statement Of the la~
was obtained from r. r. Randolph.
''it should be understood by eli pros
pectorE. In stalking Oft mining locations,
that IL has become the settled law OF the
country that sections - and q OF the
United States revised statutes must be
complied with. They require that rhe GER
tidc8te OF location flied for record must
contain sEch a description Of the claim
hy reference to some natural object or
permanent monument as viii identity the
claim The reference to a natural object
or permanent monument must be such as
to furnish reasonable certainty that the
notice OF the claim has not been and could
not we'll be changed. The superficial AREA,
Is. given in most mineral location notices.
H. ia Itself insufficient. 4 statement that
this claim is OF the south side. or the north
side Of a certain mountain or stream and
Bhout a certain distance frsrs certain
natural object will not be sufficient. \
permanent monument may he erected for
the purpose Of tying the claim to IL. but
then the courses and distances from such
monument to the discovery stake, or some
otler object on the ground. must be stated
with reasonable accuracy.
THE supreme court OF Idaho, in the case
Of Brown and others against Levan. de-
Al T. to Ysrr.E
1895. and repeated I'm the fortieth Pacific
Reporter. page ssi holds that IL is the
duty % TIE court to give mining notices
and records liberal construction 10 the end
o. uphoiding locations made in good faith.
But where the description and reference
TO a natural object or permanent monu-
fneut Il OF such a character that mining
engineer could not find the claim from
the recorded certificate Of location. and
where 1t Is such that the claim may b.
foaied almost anywhere to suit the ground
ar to cover ore that may have since been
discovered. Is clearly such a notice as
cannot furnish the foundation for n valid
location and such "a notice or certificate
IL void against subsequent valid locations
The same principle is held In the case OF
Saxon VS.. barnard. fourth Federal Re-
porter. page .02 and in the case OF Min
ing Company vs.. Drake. eighth Colorado.
page $50. and Dillon vs. Bayliss. Montana.
twenty seventh Pacific Reporter. page 1876.
and In Drummond VS.. Long. ninth Colo
cra0o. page $40. as well as in the directions
OF the supreme courts Of all the mining
states.
1T will he noticed from the foregoing
ty prospectors In this state. where the
question Of the sufficiency OF a mineral
claim has not yet been determined. that
the universal rule In all states where the
question has been passed upon Is that
mineral notice or certificate Of location.
which Is the same thing must be such
notice that mining engineer can take a
copy OF the notice and go out into the
mining district where the claim Is located
and from the description therein given be
able 10 find the claim from some natural
object or permanent monument. Other
wise the notice of location is absolutely
void not voIdable. but void-nor Will
notice which Is not In compliance with
the requirements OF the law. even though
posted on the land and the land staked
OF and the superficial area described. be
any bar to a subsequent location. pro-
vldlng such notice does not comply with
the requirements OF sections y and 81 Of
the revised statutes. except perhaps for
the period OF thirty days In which the
prospector has to complete his location
and the fling OF his notice under the laws
OF this state. Beginning at this stake ard
corner and thence 800 fec, east for the
southeast corner and so forth. thus Civ
Ing the superficial area is not sufficient
notice as required by the aforesaid Sec
tons and Is absolutely void as certf-
cate Of loca ton, A notice OF this kind
viii not afford a bcsis for n relocation
notice. tire supreme courts OF the several
states having held that. u the original
certificate of location IL void under sec
tious - and - revised statutes Il viii
AFFORD no basis for relocation notice
- think I have made this sufficiently
elnar for rrospectors and thoss
who may be interested In pur-
chasing prospects. to understand.
j. NAV he diiHcot for a prospecto-
- comply with tie requirements ~ the
law while out N ire mountains perhaps
with neither compass nor chain yet I, IS
The only sure and certain way for pros
pector 10 hold e4airn after he has made
FfNroxsYv