The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-10-02
MARBLE is MINERAL
THE hsoTTy QUESTION RECENTLY
DECIDED BY BLISS.
rest Ssse Affecting Vast Bodies of
Land in Washington - Constant
broadening OF the Definition of
herai-an Appeal To BE Taken.

SPECIAL D.s7stch 70 The Post-Iutelllrsnce-.
-Stt4NA4QN. 0ct T.-~-FAr011nn -ha
Kindness % Mr.. Wits Vansevenser. as
sistaEt attorney general for the interior
delAf sE2ent. your correspondent Is en-
aniea 70 give very FUN resume Of the i'm
foI1SEf decision rsceutly rendered BY Sec
rotary q the Interior Bliss in favor Of tia
Pacific Coast Marble Coulpanv ana tha
state OF Washington. as announced in
these dispatches some DAYS ago
The land primarily involved tn this con-
roversT Includes parts q sections IA Il
Is 2 ard "a township = north. range *
east, Spokane land district The portions
lying n sections y and 2 were claimed by
the Northern Pacific by virtue 81 is }3sr
number Of indemnity selections under
is grant o. July ? 1854 The state 4
Washington was also Interested in this de-
css-on, as x claimed that part Of the land
WHICH les II section is under Its grant
/. for scool purposes. The Pacific Coast
Marble Company claimed al the land
embracing 30 acres, under an application
for patent. He'd October Is. 1SsS based vp-
on six distinct but Contiguous placer min
Ing locations OF twenty acres each made
prior thereto. and known respectively as
the Clark. Heltkemper, CiarBo. Lebe
Haight. and Strobe mining claims
The company presented proof Of publ
cation January ?. 1Sss. and rendered pay
ment which vas declined hy the local
land officers a. Spokane, who asked for in
s3Tuctions from the commissioner Of the
general land office. AS a result Of the
iatters Instructions. hearing was held
al which all the parties appeared and en-
tered into a written stipulation IN which
X was agreed that the controversy should
be submitted upon the legal question Of
whether or not marble IS a mineral. such
as to except the land from the grant 70 the
Northern Pacific.
The state had the same interest IN the
case as the railroad company for de-
cision in favor Of the marble company
was, OF course adverse TO the state seiec-
ton as school land. The local land OFF,
GERS held the land was mineral In charac-
ter. Both the railroad company and the
state appealed. and the commissioner Of
the general land office decided in their ia
vor. The marble company then appealed
20 the secretary Of the interior. In view
Of the Importance OF the question involved.
conceded by all parties. the case was adj
vanced from Its regular order and made
special. The evidence before the secretary
shows that the marble Is OF a superior
quality. susceptible of a high polish and
useful for ornamental purposes. The de-
posit Is represented as very extensive.
The decision Is very elaborate going into
the legal aspects Of the case In great de-
tail. and covers thirty-four pages Of close
typewriting. The secretary calls attention
to the fact that the grant TO the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company specifically ex-
cepts all mineral lands. but provides that
the word mineral shall not be held 10
include iron or coal. The grant TO the
state for school purposes excerpts "all min
eral land" The mining statutes Of the
United States are then reviewed at length.
Briefly summarized, the contention OF
the railroad company Is that the term
mineral lands should be construed as
lands containing valuable metalferous
deposits" and that as marble is not such
a deposit, lands containing H. though
chiefly valuable on account thereof. are
not excepted from its grant. The state
takes the same position with reference TO
It's grant. The marble company claims,
ard the secretary Of the interior so held.
that the value and not the kind Of any
given mineral deposit, is the controlling
key which determines the question.
The secretary finds. in reviewing past
legislation. that congress in 1854 specifi-
eany classed coal as a mineral and the
supreme court OF 1.-THE United States. sub
sequentIy. In the case Of Mullan vs.. United
States. sustained this classification
George II. Williams. of Portland. ore.
when attorney general. IN 1S12, gave an
opinion that diamonds were embraced by
the term valuable mineral deposits" and
further expressed the opinion that these
acts ought 10 be most literally construed.
so as TO facilitate the sale" Of the mineral
lands Of the public domain.
Commissioner Drummond Of the central
land office. in July, 1873. held that what
ever Is recognized as mineral by the stand
ard authorities on the subject where the
same is found in quantity and quality 10
render the land sought 20 be patented
more valuable on this account than for
purposes Of agriculture. should be treated
By this office as coming within the pur-
view Of the mining act OF May 10, ISL"
Al that time the commissioner classified
as mineral all deposits q borax, carbonate
OF soda. nitrate Of soda. sulphur alum,
and asphalt The next commissioner.
Rurdette In 1875. extended the list Of
'minerals'' 20 include deposits OF lumber.
petroleum. limestone. marble. and kaolin.
Commissioner Mcfarland IN lSs2. added
veins OF clay and also building stone.
Secretary 81 the Interior Kirkwood. IN ISL,
included gypsum as a mineral and secre-
tary Henry NJ. Teller. IN isSS directed that
all lands containing such deposits as have
iust been noted should be enterable un-
der the mining laws" Secretary Iellsr.