The Marble times and Crystal silver lance., 1900-11-09


The question has been asked the
TIMES man whether the owner of a
patented mineral claim could use or
sell the timber on it for commercial or
| other uses. He certainly can do so
without violating any existing law as
the government, when il grants pat
ent to mineral lands divests itself of all
ownership it possessed at the time of
issuing the patent, except vested and
accrued water rights for mining, agri-
cultural, manufacturing or other pur-
poses. and rights to bitches, and res
ervoirs used in connection with such
water rights as may he recognized and
acknowledged by local laws, customs
and decisions of the courts; and there
i3 further reserved right of way for
bitches or canals constructed by au-
thority of the United States. 1t is fur
ther stipulated that the premises grant
ed. Uitb The ecceptjcn cf tie surface.
inay be entered by the proprietor OF
any other vein. lode or ledge, the top
or apex of which lies outside of the
boundary of such granted premises,
should the same in its dip be found to
penetrate, intersect, or extend into said
premises, for the purpose of extract
ing and removing the ore from such
other vein, lode or ledge
In former issue THE TI4ls print
ed ar extract from decision lately
handed down by the United States Cir
cult Court of Appeals, at San Francis
co, in the case OF the Drum Lummon
vein. 1t is somewhat strange that the
mining law is in such chaos as found
in the statutes, and it would seem th at
every Judge before whom disputed
points are brought feels called upon to
elaborate upon the point involved and
in a prolix elucidation, bristling with
technicalities unfamiliar to the average
reader, makes the decision valueless to
those it was intended to enlighten, and
fruitful only to the mining lawyer, who
has. in turn, to go before another Judge
to have the other judges opinion in
terpreted. There is not such mys-
terry about mining rights as to hedge
them around with a screen of almost
nonsensical rubbish. Ii the present
laws a.e incapable of uniform, terse
and intelligent interpretation, then it
is time that good common sense min
ing laws be enacted that can be UNDER
stood by all. Until that is done mine
owners may expect to be bled by the
the legal profession, but they cannot
be blamed for taking advantage of
such a ripe harvest.
Speaking of the erratic course pur-
sued by courts and the Land Office in
making rulings in mining law, the lat
est is an up-setting of an old prece-
dent. Ia re-, the Hustler claim, in Tel
Ter county, the patent has been fought
through The courts. and involves an
important point OF mining law. upon
which the Secretary OF the Interior
made d ruling which set aside the re-
gulation as it has been interpreted for
the past sixteen years. Under the in
depreciation of the ruling of 1882 the
end center or the center point of the
end line had to be located upon clear
ground, and by this understanding
nearly every claim of the Cripple Greek
district and other camps was located.
The Interpretation of the law at this
time is that the end corner may fall
anywhere it comes, so long as por
ton of the end line OF The claim falls
on clear ground.
The Taylor Park Mining company,
in this county, built ditch 16 miles
long, and to protect its rights to the
ground located a placer claim sixteen
miles long and ffty-two feet wide, con-
tanning nearly 102 acres. A part of
this placer crossed surveyed legal sub
divisions, and in defiance of the stat
ute that placers must conform to legal
subdivisions, the small strip above
mentioned was only taken The Seq