The Nome nugget., 1902-03-22

| Sula is mineraliZed. That fact admitted by the tOwnsite settlers doesn't by d long shot defeat the tOwnsite settler. The mining locator must show beyond doubt that it is more valuable for min ing purposes than it is for townsite pur- poses. That is, he must show to the satisfaction of the court that at the time the townsite settlers went upon the tOwnsite of Nome the land was known to contain mineral of such ex- tent and value as to justify expendi- lures for the purpose of extracting 1t. Has the mining locator, by his acts, done this, and is it not 9 fact that he knows no more about the charaete of the land than the townsite settler:
 "Now, the three years history of the acts of the mining locators, who claim the ground on which the town of Nome is situated, cumulatively proves 10 my mind it is not more valuable for min ing purposes than for tOwnsite pur poses. How many sluice boxes have been seen in action on the tOwnsite of Nome since June, 1900?
 "lf the mining claims on which this city is situated were real live mining claims, like those of Anvil creek. do you suppose the owners would be going from door to door soliciting, command ing and soaring honest tOwnsite set tiers into buying them of No. The law gives them the exclusive right of possession, providing the mining claims are such as those on Anvil creek. But they are not, and the pretended owners are blackmaiing the tOwnSite settlers and taking anything they can get
 "The mining locations on the town site of Nome are maintained for no other purpose than for speculation, and any tOwnsite settler who pays them cent should be looked up and an insane commission issued by the court to determine whether or not Il guardian should be appointed to take charge of his affairs. can buy for cash, 1 honestly believe, every mining claim between the eastern city limits and Fort Davis, fronting on Bering sea, for $500 claim, and expect that many of them are open for relocation.
 ''The people of Nome, however, shou d keep sharp lookout, that some of these mining locators do not apply at patent for the land on which the city of Nome is located, and not let the time elapse in which protest can be filed,
 
 patent and asking that a hearing may be had to determine the question of fact heretofore referred to, viz: Whether or not the land on which Nome is located is mineral land, and whether or not it is more valuable for mining than for any other purpose.
 "Even if it IS shown that the land on which the tOwnsite of Nome is located is mineral land and the mining locator has the permanent right to the land, would that fact estOp the townsite from protection No; for congress gave to the citizens of Alaska the rIght to found an incorporated town like Nome on the mineral lands of Alaska.
 "lhe federal judiciary would meet such an example, how? Why. let the mining locator sluice out all the vau- able mineral and patent would be given to the tOWnsite settler. Still, why speculate or cross any bridge until IL is met. Let the mining claimant show the character of the land, and then the tOwnsite settlers will meet him on the last proposition.
 Judge Hawley says: The supreme court of the United States has repeat edly declared that, under the acts of congress which govern such cases, Tn order to except mines or mineral land from the operation of the tOwnSlte patent. 1t is not sufficient that the lands do in fact contain minerals, or even valuable minerals, but they must be known to contain mineral of such extent and value as to justify eX- penditures for the purpose of extract ing them
 "Can the mining claimants show to jury that such a state of facts exist relative to these mining claims located on the Nome tOwnsite? l say no. If such was the fact, would not the pre- tended owners of these mining claims have been sluicing out the valuable minerals these past three years? Most assuredly they would. But instead they have exhibited 10 d poor devil of townsite claimant q beautiful certified copy of their mining location and ex- torled money from him, or tried hard to do so.
 "In announcing the above stated by Judge Hawley. the supreme court of the United States, in the case of Davis vs. Weibold, l39 U. S., p. 507, states: In connection with these views. 1t Is to be borne in mind, also, that the object of the tOwnSile act was to afford relief to the inhabitants of cities and towns upon the public lands by giving title to the lands occupied by them, and thus induce them to erect suitable buildings for residence and business This means that the mining locator must show the governments as he would the man from Missouri, that not only has he valid mining location and that he has discovered gold thereon, but that the gold therein is of such value as to justify exploitation and working. "Recollcct these decisions all refer to the general townsite law, which pro hibits d townsite on mineral land, but we have townsite law in force in Alaska which permits townsite entry on mineral land.'