The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-12
It REvERSES THE ORDER
A Decision by the Secretary of
the Interior.
HE SUSTAINS THE APPEAL
Action of John P. Reins Against Sally
Raunheim, Which Involved Tract
OF Land in the vicin-
ity of Butte

The Butte parties interested in the
contest yesterday received word that
the register and receiver of the Helena
land office have received decision from
the secretary of the interior reversing
the order of the commissioner of the
general land office in directing a hear
ing in the action brought by John P.
Reins against Sally Raunheim, involving
tract of land near Butte held as placer
ground by the defendant. Raunheim
and the Boston & Montana COM
pany appealed from the decision of the
commissioner ordering hearing on
the protest of Reins against the issue
of mineral patent, and the secretary
sustains the appeal.
The land involved was located as
placer ground by Erastus A. Nichols
and others February %, 1880, and af-
forwards conveyed to Raunheim, who,
July 16, 1881, made application for
patent. No. adverse claim was filed
and patent certificate was issued to
Raunheim May %, 1882. In July, 1888.
Henry c. Dahl filed a protest against
the placer entry, claiming that 1t con-
fiicted with the entry of the Betsy Dahl
lode claim, which was located March 9,
1881, and which embraced three and
fraction acres included within the
placer entry The day following the
allowance of Raunheim's placer entry,
he filed an adverse against the applica-
ton of Dahl to quiet title to the part Of
his entry included within the lode
claim Raunheim secured judgment in
the local court, which was affirmed by
the supreme court of the state and the
supreme court of the United States
In his protest, Reins claims to have
located the Combination lode claim
April 49, 1898, embracing exactly the
same ground as was included in the
Betsy Dahl claim. The protest states
also that he has complied with the law,
that he has expended $3.50 on the
claim, and that Raunheim's placer
claim to the ground included within
his lode entry is invalid. The COM
missioner eventually ordered a hearing
on the protest to determine whether
enough mineral had been discovered on
the ground in dispute to warrant its
entry as placer ground. The secretary
in reversing the commissioner discusses
the case at considerable length. In the
course of his decision, which is of de-
cided interest to mining men, he says:
THE showing made by Reins does
not entitle him to equitable considera-
ton. At the time of making his lode
location in 1898, he well knew that the
for II years. embraced in Raunheim's
placer entry and that this entry had
been sustained by the supreme court
of the United States against the Betsy
Dahl lode location covering the ground
here in conflict. His location of this
ground does not therefore, affect the
validity of Raunheim'S placer entry,
which, under the facts here presented,
is matter solely between the govern
ment and those claiming under that
entry.
1.-The land embraced in the placer
entry was returned as mineral in quail
ity by the surveyor general; it was en-
tered as placer ground as long ago as
1888, and that entry has been sustained,
as against a lode claim for the ground
here in controversy, by the district and
supreme courts of Montana, and by the
supreme court of the United States.
Raunheim's claim has been transferred
to others, and now after the lapse of
more than II years since his entry was
allowed and patent issued to him, the
government is asked to order a hear
ing to determine the validity of that
entry" nr..ssh
After discussing the proof made pre-
ceding the allowance of the entry, the
secretary says:
1.-The showing was sufficient to war
rant passing the entry to patent, and
after the lapse of so many years the
government should not permit 1T to be
questioned by any one who has no in
terest whatever in the land at the time
of the entry"
Does the charge that a discovery of
mineral was not made preceding the
location of the placer claim justify the
order for a hearing? In the supple
mental proof, the placer claimant had
two supporting witnesses swear that the
soil Is composed of gold bearing gravel,
and this clearly amounts to a state
ment that placer gold had been found
and discovered within the boundaries
of the claim. 1t is immaterial whether
the discovery occurred before or after
location, if it occurred before the rights
of others interviewed.
I'm addition to the showing evidence
ing a discovery, an additional reason
appears for refusing to order hear
ing on the charge of an absence of dis
coyery. In the case of Hallet and Ham
burg lodes, involving conflicting mineral
claims, 1t is held that due discovery
of mineral being a condition to the
right of possession of mining claim, is
necessarily an issue in adverse pro-
ceedings brought to determine such
right, and that judgment in such
proceedings presupposes finding upon
that issue favorable to the claimant
declared to have the right of possess
| sion. Observation and experience have
| demonstrated the wisdom of applying
| ruling of this character to cases of
| conflicting mineral claims, the assertion
| of which is manifestly concession of
! the mineral character of the land. The
| suit instituted by Raunheim against
| Dahl was treated by the supreme court
| of Montana as an adverse proceeding
| under section 1926 of the revised stat
utes, and there are many reasons for
| so considering it."