The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-07
Decision Relative to Mining No
tees.
OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
The Text OF the Opinion Rendered by
the Secretary of the Interior E.
A. Hitchcock-Intent of
the Statute.
Washington Bureau of the Standard,
No. 11A5 G Street n w

the secretary of the interior in the case
of William E. Gowdy VS.. J. Arthur
Council recently reported in the Stand
ard has now been promulgated for the
Information of mine owners and land
officers. This decision reverses the
commissioner of the general land office
and restores the practice of publication
and republication of mining notices to
what it was before the Kismet decision
in 1896. Duane E. Fox, we'll known
attorney of this city, has fought this
and associated cases for three years
and finally been successful
-, The decision is of great Importance
to all mining interests and is given
herewith in full 1t is in the form of
letter addressed to Commissioner Her
mann of the general land office and
reads as follows:
This case is before the department
under an order dated Sept. 9, 1898. en-
tertaining motion by ]. Arthur Connell
for review of the decision of June S,
1898 e. L. D.. So, wherein. affirming
your office decision of Oct. Is, 1896 in
the matter of mineral entry No. SCI of
the Big Chief and Big Mike lode claims,
survey No. SS6S. Pueblo, Col. land dis
trict the published notice of the appi-
cation for patent was held to be
insufficient. and new notice was re-
quired for the reason that the Chicago
, Girl lode claim. an adjoining claim
was not mentioned in the published no.
tice, either by name or by its official
I survey number
Your office decision was based upon
the decision of the department in the
case of Cowdy ct al. VS.. Kismet Gold
i Mining company (22 L. D.. 624) The
last mentioned decision was modified
n ION review Feb. 27, 1897 ga L. D.. 19l)
1t is contended in the motion that the
decision of Feb. q, 1897, in that case
which is referred to in the decision un-
der review as if supporting the same
does not in fact support it, but is re-
pugnant to it, and that the decision of
the department. dated June 25. 1898. in
m the case of Hallett and Hamburg lodes
CT l.. D., 104), is also repugnant to it.
William H, Gowdy, the protestant
in the case, was also, as alleged owner
of the Chicago Girl claim. one of the
protestants in the Gowdy- kismet case
supra. In that case it was charged
among other things, that the published
notice of the application for patent to
n the Kismet lode claim. did not contain
the names of adjoining claims. nor
state where the. record of the kismet
location should be. found. These charges
We're shown to be true in each partic-
ular. The kismet published notice did
not make mention of any adjoining
claim, either by name or survey num-
Der, nor did it contain any statement
relative to the record of the location
notice In these particulars, therefore,
the notice did not meet the literal re-
quirements of the then existing regu-
W lations Ginning regulations approved
Anr ,1,r,
which We're sustained and insisted
upon in the first of the Gowdy-Kismet
decisions, supra.
considering these charges in con-
nection with the facts disclosed in that
case and in many similar cases in your
4 Office, the department. in its decision of
s. Feb. 81, 1897, supra opp 1872 and 1887,
said
An informal inquiry at the mineral
division in your office discloses the fact
that large proportion of the notices
of the character under discussion are
not strictly in conformity with the reg
ulations, and some of the features
might on strict construction be subject
to the same criticism as the one at
bar. 1t has been considered by your
> office that these notices are subStan-
tan compliance with the regulations.
"'After mature elaboration on this
! SUBJECT am convinced tnat there Is
much force in the proposition that the
rule announced by the department in
this case, If enforced, would effect
material change in the practice thereto
fore prevailing in your office, which, by
reason Of its long standing, may be
regarded as Having become a rule of
property, and that the summary en-
forcement of such a rule as to pending
G. applications, in which notice has been
given under the former practice, is
not only calculated to cause much con-
fusion, but great expense, both of which
should be avoided
THE department then directed the
immediate PRONUNCIATION of a substi-
tute, therein set out (p. 1870, for the
present paragraph 29--
with instructions that
the same will be in full force and effect
on and after the first day of June
1897, and all publications made there
after must be in conformity with this
All publications made or started prior
to that date will be treated under the
rule as it was interpreted prior to the
original decision in this case
And in conclusion held that
:" in the case at bar there
was a substantial compliance by the
applicants with the rules as then admin
istered and construed, and that the
tprevious) decision should be modified
TO this extent. The order recurring re-
during that period is hereby revoked
Read in the light Of the facts in the
Kismet published notice, which contains
no reference to any adjoining claim
nor to any record of the kismet loca-
ton, it is evident that it was intended
to hold in the decision of Feb. 81 1897,
that the failure to include such data
in publicatio of notice made or
started prior to June l, 1897, would
not render the notice insufficient or
make it necessary that new notice be
given, but that, as was therein eX-
pressly said. such publications will be
treated under the rule as it was inter
preted prior to the original decision
in this case While no mention is made
of the Chicago Girl claim in the pub
lished notice of the Big Chief and Big
Mike application. four other claims are
mentioned therein by their survey num-
bers, that Is. surveys Nos. S451 $3.50,
S.I4l and S.426. as conflicting claims.