Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-07-23
AN OLD MINE DISPUTE
Secretary Of the Interior E. A. Hitch
cock Makes a Final Decision
in the Case.
A FIGHT OVER BOUNDARIES
An Appeal from the General Land Office
The Albemarle, Huron, Ontario and
Pamlico Lode Mining Claims Are
the Properties Involved.

the Properties Involved.
The following is the decision and
| opinion of Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, secre-
| tary of the interior, in the case of in
re Albemarle and other lode mining
claims:
The Commissioner of the General
Land Office-Charles II. Toll and others
have appealed from the decision of
your office requiring new notice to be
| given in the application for patent to
the Albemarle, Ontario, Huron and
Pamlico lode mining claims, survey No.
997 A, B, C. and D, embraced in Santa
Fe, IN. NJ mineral entry No. So, made
| May II, 1898, by said Toll and others.
Said requirement of your office APP
pears to rave been based upon a state
ment of the surveyor general of New
Mexico in his letter of August 2, 1898,
to the effect that the loci of said claims
are represented in the official survey
thereof for patent to be 1900 feet west
Of their actual positions as correctly
shown by a survey recently made I'M
der his direction, connecting these
| claims with United States locating min
eral monument No. l, Cochiti mining
district. AS the notice of the applica-
ton for patent represented the loci Of
the claims to be as shown in the said
official survey thereof, your office deci-
| cinp nf A,,uY,ct 90 1000 hal1 c,,oh M
tice insufficient in view of said state
ment Of the surveyor general, and re-
CURED new notice to be given by pub
LEGATION and posting, correctly describ-
ing the loci of the claims. In decisions
of September 80 and November l, 1898,
on review, your office adheres to the
said requirement. Appellants contend
that the notice as already given cor
rectly and sufficiently shows the true
positions of the claims.
1t appears that in the said official
survey of the claims for patent the
same We're generally tied to a pine post
supposed to be the southwest corner of
section 10, township Is north, range 4
east, New Mexico principal meridian.
This pine post and supposed corner of
the public survey, though more than
two miles 1880 feet) from the near
est corner Of the Albemarle group of
claims, and therefore beyond the pre-
scribed limit for an official survey con-
nection (mining regulations, paragraph
4D, was reported by the United States
deputy mineral surveyor, who made the
survey to be the nearest public survey
corner to said group Of claims that he
could find after diligent and faithful
SEARCH" and it was for that reason, he
states, that he tied the group to the
pine post corner Other instances hav-
ing been reported to the surveyor gem
eral of inability OF the part Of the dep
uty mineral surveyors to find corners
Of the public survey in said township,
the surveyor general was thereby, and
for other reasons stated in his letters
to our office of December 20, 1897, and
April 70, 1898, not necessary to be re-
cited here, not only led to believe that
the said pine post was not the true cor
ner Of said section Is, but also to doubt
whether the survey of said township
had been made and section and other
corners thereof established in due COM
pliance with law. Accordingly, in order
to prevent confusion and uncertainty
as to the true loci of mining claims in
the vicinity, he caused the said United
States mineral monument No. / to be
established in January, 1898. He sub
sequently caused a survey of the con-
nections of the Albemarle group to be
made Herewith as hereinbefore stated.
In establishing the said mineral mon
ument, the deputy surveyor, in addi-
ton to fixing its position by courses
and distances therefrom to adjacent
mountain peaks and otherwise, also "a
a course and distance between the same
and what he designates in his field
notes as
Cor. of secs. Is, 80, 81 and SO, T. 1S N,
RS. 4 and S E.. recently established by
(him) under contract No. $40, sur
vey unapproved.
Because of various errors In the sur
vey of said township IS north, range 5
east, under said contract, n Of which
was the failure of the deputy surveyor !
to correctly establish the western
boundary of such township, the survey
was rejected by the surveyor general
and by your office; and upon appeal
from such action the matter was re-
manded by the department May IA,
1900 (unreported), to your Office for cor
Of the survey in the field, and
for further consideration and action in
accordance with directions then given.
That survey stands thus still unap-
proved. and the boundary between the
said townships, to a supposed point or
which, as above indicated, the deputy
surveyor ran the course and distance