Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-07-11
THE BETSY DAHL
Decision Of Secretary Of the
Interior
AGAINST JOHN P. REINS
After a Lapse of Seventeen Years
Sally Raunheim Secures
Absolute Title.

The secretary Of the interior has hand
ed down a decision in the Betsy Dahl case
involving title to that ground in Meader-
Vile. The decision reverses the order of
the commissioner of the general land Of
flee in directing a hearing in the action
brought by John P. Reins against Sally
Raunheim, who was formerly manage of
the present Boston & Montana properties
in Butte. Raunheim and the Boston &
Montana company appealed from the de-
cision of the commissioner ordering a
hearing on the protest of Reins against
the issue of a mineral patent, and the
secretary sustains the appeal.
The case is an interesting one, and is
another instance of the conflict between
quartz and placer locations. The ground
is situated east of the Leonard shaft and
was located as placer ground by Erastus
A. Nichols and others on February %,
1880, and afterwards conveyed to Raun-
helm, who on July Is, 1881, mad appli-
cation for patent. No adverse claim was
filed and patent certificate was issued to
Raunheim May %, 1882. In July, 1883.
Henry c. Dahl filed a protest against the
placer entry, claiming hat it conflicted
with the entry of the Betsy Dahl lode
claim, which was located March 9, 1881,
and which embraced three and a fraction
acres included within the placer entry.
The day following the allowance of Raun-
helms placer entry. he filed an adverse
claim against the application of Dahl to
quiet title to the part of his entry in
cluded 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 To-
Gated the Combination lode claim April
13, 1893, 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 81. $50 on the claim. and that
Raunheim's placer claim to the ground
included within his lode entry is invalid.
The commissioner eventually ordered a
hearing on the protest to determine
whether enough mineral had been dis
/ covered on the ground in dispute to war;
rant its entry as placer ground. The sec
rotary in reversing the commissioner dis
cusses the case at considerable length. In
the purse of his decision, which is of de-
cided interest to mining men. he says:
1.-THE showing made by Reins does not
entitle him to equitable consideration. At
the time of making his lode location in
1898, he we'll knew that the land in con
flict was then, and had been 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 COW
ering the ground here in conflict. His To-
cation of this ground does not, therefore,
affect the validity OF Raunheim's placer
entry. which under the facts here pre-
sented, is a matter solely between the
government II those claiming under
that entry.
9Th land embraced in the placer entry
was returned as mineral in quality by the
surveyor general: it was entered as pla-
Ger ground as long ago as 1883, and that
entry has been sustained, as against a
lode claim for the ground here in control
versy, 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
hearing to determine the validity of that
entry" r
After discussing the proof made pre-
ceding the allowance of the entry, the
secretary says:
"The showing was sufficient to warrant
passing the entry to patent, and after the
lapse of so nan years the government
hould not permit 1t to be questioned by
any one who has no interest whatever in
the land at the time of the entry"
Continuing, the secretary says: "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 supplemental proof. the
placer claimant had two supporting wit
nesses swear that the soil is composed Of
gold bearing gravel. and this clearly
amounts to a statement that placer gold
| had been found and discovered within the
boundaries of the claim. 1t is immaterial
whether the discovery occurred before the
| rights of others interviewed.
"In addition to the showing evidencing
a discovery, al additional reason appears
for refusing to order a hearing on the
charge Of an absence of discovery. In
the case of Hallet and Hamburg lodes,
involving conflicting mineral claims, it is
held that due discovery of mineral being
a condition to the right of possession Of
| mining claims. is necessarily an issue in
| adverse proceedings brought to determine
| such right, and that a judgment in such
! proceedings presupposes a finding upon
that issue favorable to the claimant de-
clared to have the right of possession.
Observation and experience ave demon
strated the wisdom of applying a ruling
of this character to cases of conflicting
mineral claims. the assertion of which is
manifestly a 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