Daily inter mountain., 1900-12-19
HONEST FARMER
TEIED TO GET MINERAL LAND AS
HOMESTEAD.
AN IMPORTANT LAND RULING
Cannot File on Mineral Lands Under
Homestead Laws-An Evident
Fraud.

wasbinston. Dec. 19.-The commission
or of the general land office has rendered
a decision in favor of the former in the
case of the Kern River Oil company VS..
w. S. Clarke.
Mr.. Clarke claimed title to two square
sections of q forest reservation IN Can
fo~nia as agricultural land. The OIL COM
pany protested that these lands were
mineral About the time the selections
We're made ii was represented to the lana
office that the lands in this and large
numoer Of adjoining townships were
solely valuable for their petroleum de-
posits. for which they had been located
under the mining laws and for when
they We're being developed. The survey
of the lands over forty years ago made
no reference to minerals and returned the
lands a. agrilultural. and the opinion
says that the lands remained unclaimed
under the agricultural laws. until after
their location for mineral. The court
holds that these claiming title to selec-
tions under the act OF June A. 1897, nave
not done ali tn y are required to DO until
they have filed proof required, made
proof of the publication of notice ana the
same has been approved by the general
land office.
Under this ruling. the opinion says the
land in these sections is yet opened to eX-
ploration under The mining laws, and II
at this date the lands are shown to be
mineral it defeats the selections. The
opinion says:
1t does not seem that any question
could arise as t. who had the best right
to this land and 10 whom the mineral
product belongs.
Even if no wells had been sunk at the
date of the selections and the mining
claimants had rested solely upon the sur
face discoveries. but We're duly proceed
ing With reasonable diligence TO develop
the claims. the agricultural claimants
would not have been entitled to the land
as vacant land open to settlement.
IF the lands are not distinctly agri-
cultural in character, but in addition
contain surface mineral indications. jus
tying an indiscreet person to prospect
and develop the same, then the affidavit
which AYERS that the application there
for is not made for the purpose of fraud
ulently obtaining title to mineral land,
but with the object of securing said land
for agricultural purposes SO far as the
depon@nt knows, is noe only evasive. but
misleading and evidences a motive for
acquiring the lands really for mineral
and not for agricultural purposes. The
good faith of the mineral claimants is
apparent and conclusive. They seek to
obtain, in a proFer manner, title to lands
under laws solely provided therefore, do
not find the same conditions existing in
the case of the AGRICULTURAL ella INFANT who
seeks to acquire mineral lands under ag-
ricultural laws lands which are not
agricultural"
The final date of these selections of
lands included therein were covered by
mining claims and therefor not vacant:
they We're known 10 be mineral and
therefore We're not open e settlement
the fact that The conditions We're not on
record in the land office did not affect
the mineral locator's rights: and the
failure of the agricultural claimant tc
state the facts was a fraud on the gov
erngnent and the mineral claimants as
the selectOrs We're charged With notice OF
mineral locati If any further evil
dence i needed in support of above con.
illusions, it is to be found in the special
agents report made with reference tc
these particular select ons. nor can there
be any question of the authority of this
office to consider such report in connec.
tion with the record in this case