The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-08-30

Its grantors. and no work or improve
meuts whatever for the developing OF
working OF the and in question as a
placer claim or min had been put upon
the placer claims: that the published
notice 81 the mineral application did
not state where the record could be
found: that the description OF the no
t.ce did not conform to the description
in the location OF the claim: that the
notice does not mcntion all Of the adj
Joining claims: that there IL no such
legal subdivision Of lands as set out in
the notice. and that the applicant has
not represented the placer claims as re-
quired by law during the years 1892,
1893. 1894. 1895 and 1896.
Upon the filing Of the protest a
hearing Was ordered al which evidence
might be submitted to prove or dis
prove the material allegations CON
tanned in the protest. on the day I'm
ally agreed upon for the hearing both
parties appeared and submitted evil
dence. and thereupon. on April %. 1898.
the register and receiver OF the land
office at Helena rendered a decision in
which he decided that no discovery Of
mineral was made by the locators Of
the placer claim: that $500 hav not
been expended for the Improvement
or DEVELOPMENT Of the placer mining
claim; that the required annual as
scssment work was not performed upon
the said claim by the claimant or it's
predecessor IN interest during any OF
the years since the locations were
made, and the land embraced in the
placer application Is not mineral in
character. and accordingly recon-
mended that the application FOR patent
FOR the placer claim he cancelled. on
May 20. 1898. the contestant filed an ap-
peal from the decision. together with
specifications OF alleged error"
The specifications Of errors are set
out In the commissioners opinion.
They simply relate that the register
and receiver errored in all his rulings
on the points already mentioned. ON
tinuinE. the commissioner says: The
contestees in this case contend that
contestants protest should not have
been entertained in view Of the deci-
sion Of the court in the case Of the
Montana Copper against
Dahl. This contention, however. is held
to be untenable. for the reason that
II has been decided thy this department
that the commissioner Of the general
land office may inquire into the facts
as TO whether the conditions Of the
law have been complied with. although
the applicant for "A patent may have
obtained a favorable Judgment in the
courts against an adverse claimant.
The contestees also contend that Il IL
not incumbent upon them to show that
deposits Of mineral have been dlscov-
cred within the limits OF the placer
claims, for the reason that the claims
were located upon and taken by legal
subdivisions. which were returned by
the surveyor general as being mineral
In character. This contention is here
by held to be unadvlsable. An actual
discovery OF mineral does not obviate
the necessity OF a discovery as n basis
of a placer location. The bona hdes Of
contestants claim 20 the Combination
are not deemed to be I'm issue in
this case. and therefore his right in the
premises Will not be considered here
in.
THE description Of the placer claims
as given i'm the location notices. in the
application for patent. and the pub
lished notice, Is deemed sufficient, and
the application as published in the
newspapers, taken i'm its entirety. is
held TO be a proper notice. The land
embraced In the placer application is
In the suburbs Of Meaderville. near the
city OF Butte. and thereon appears a
smelter, school house and many other
structures.
Upon a careful examination OF the
entire record ! nave reached the con-
Clusion. and accordingly decide. that
the following facts are clearly estab-
lished by a preponderanCe Of the evil
dence submitted in this case:
"Flrst-That no placer mineral de-
posit has ever been discovered by any
one within the limits of the claims en-
hraced in the Montana Copper COM
pany's application.
"Second-That the placer claimant.
its grantors or grantees, have failed in
all Of the years since the placer loca-
were made 10 perform or TO have
performed the annual assessment work
required by law to maintain the right
Of possession. and that the placer
claimant. its grantors or grantees. did
not resume work on said placer claims
to the location OF the Combina-
ton lode claim: and
"Third-That the placer claimant, It's
grantors or grantees. have failed to cx-
pend $500 fdr labor or improvements
upnn or for the benefit Of said placer
as required by section 1926 Of
the United States revised statutes.
The evidence submitted. to my mind.
so clearly establishes the facts above
Indicated that / do not deem ~recitals
the testimony At all necessary.
In view OF the foregoing. the appli-
cation for patent for said placer min
ing claim Is hereby rejected. and should
this decision become final IL viii he
"A nPal1G1 nnUn tho rnpGrl - I