Gilpin observer., 1900-03-29
THAT MINING DECISION.
Great Dissatisfaction with the Ruling q
tho Department.

Great Dissatisfaction with the Ruling of
tho Department..
Mining men and prospectOrs gener
ally throughout the country, says Min
ing Reporter, are in revolt against the
ruling of the land office. which requires
that where the locator has undertaken
the development Of a group of claims
by the sinking Of single shaft he
shall do $500 worth of work on each
claim before patent can be obtained.
The holders of claims to be worked
by shaft feel that the hardships of
the ruling fall particularly upon them
by reason of it's discrimination in favor
of the tunnel. The department in its
Interpretation of the statute held that
,iPshaft did not tend to develop an ell
tire group, as did tunnel, and that
those seeking patents to locations upon
the assumption that it did must desist;
and if they desired to develop by shaft
they must do the required $500 worth
of work on each claim. Thus, for in
stance, where $500 is expended on Il
tunnel to develop group of five
Nclaims, it is sufficient to satisfy the
land office: but not so with $1,000 ex-
pended on single shaft.
This distinction, however, is n mat
ter of secondary consideration. The
iuilISs IL WnOlt is DN
mining men generally 9s unreasonable
and glaringly DerniciOus. Already, un-
der the ruling large numbers u claims
upon which locators believed they
were doing the assessment upon their
several holdings through single
shaft. are technically open to reloca-
tion. The burden of such losses should
they occur through the operation of
the rule, will fall particularly heavy
upon the poor prospectors who will be
unable to perform or secure the re-
quired labor in addition to that already
performed.
Hitherto. the section of the United
States Revised Statutes referred to not
being definite or clear as to what con-
stitutes the limit of claim, the right
of patent to several claims by single
shaft development has been n matter
of custom rather than law. the right
being sustained by the silent sanction
of the department under Il decision of
the Supreme Court in 1881 (St. Louis
Company VS.. Kemp, suit involving
right to patent on Z group of placer
claims. The court sustained the pat
ent, and in support Of their decision
asserted that a miners claim might
consist of several locations: that sew
eral contiguous locations being pur-
In rebuttal of the assertion of rights
slnder this decision or of all precedent
pcustom or usage. local authorities
claim that the indirectnesS of the con-
gressional section upon the matter con
ferS upon the land office equal option
to that of the court in the construction
of its meaning. and believe that under
such indirectness of the law the ruling
\ was within the province of the depart
NNent.
However this may be. the practice
heretofore followed was authorized by
the land office itself The circum-
stances under which that authority
was given now presents an interesting
phase of the matter under contention.
The decision of 1881. above referred
to, in no event applied to lode claims.
AS to them the statute itself (sectiOn
232O limits and defines the extent of
lode mining claims in terms. The land
office, overlooking these distinctions
and following the said decision without
reference to them in regulating the
practice in applying for patent, ruled
that any number of mining locations.
lode or placer. which touch. constitute
one claim and may be patented under
one application and upon one set of
$500 Improvements. The exact ruling
Of the department was that $500 worth
of improvements was enough for any
number of contiguous locations, pro-
'vided only that such improvements are
for the common benefit in the develop
ment of the group.
In view of the facts. as stated, II
will be seen that the land Office I'm its
present ruling does not contravene the
Supreme Court, but simply reverses
an action of its own. In this it Is only
to be inferred that the present incum-
bents have detected and undertaken to
correct the error-if error it be-of
S3rmer administration.
The right of the action is now to be
questioned upon two points. namely,
the courts distinction between the
placer and the lode claim. affecting
their right OF patent, and the discre-
tion of the land office in its interpreta-
tion of IL questionable congressional
, enactment.
AS one of the first effects of the rul-
ing, movement which doubtless will
spread throughout all the mining re-
gions, Is far advanced In Colorado for
memorial to Congress asking for Il
repeal of the section upon which the
ruling of the Interior Department IL
based. and there Is scarcely II mining
man or miner that will not sign the pc
titions now being circulated to that
end.
A Utah bonanza
ii. =. Hardy of Tlntic, Utah, saws
thnt n rprpnt strike In thp .Inhuny NINA