The Nome nugget., 1902-03-22
Who Claim to Have Exclusive
 Right to Nome TOwnsite.
LAW IN THE CASE
A Townsite Law i'm Force in Alaska Which Permits a TownSite Entry on Mineral Land-V. T. HOggatt Talks About TOwnsite Patents.

In the last issue of the NUGGET an interview with City Attorney Hoggatt was published relative to townsite patents. MT. Hoggatt today deals with the same subject, and his remarks will be read with interest. Mir. Hoggatt says:
 "I said in former interview that would endeavor to show up these mining locator individuals, who claim that they have the exclusive right to the ground on which the town of Nome is situated.
 "Now, in the first place, what is the technical legal definition of mineral land or mining claim Is any portion of the public lands of the United States mineral just because person places four stakes at the four corners of 20- acre tract of the public domain? Mo-; most assuredly, no. Is it thus trans muted into mineral land by recording in the mining recorders office notice of location, to the effect that the stalker claims it under the revised statutes of the United States as mineral land, and that he has discovered gold thereon?
 "There is no mineral land in the United States, and designated as such. until the locator shows that q portion of the public lands of the United States is more valuable for mining purposes than it is for agricultural or townsite purposes.
 "Would it be contended for mo- II 1,x, ,lt h a fi,o 6,,n here in the dead of winter, with five or ing out by stakes, so that its boundaries could be traced, 20 acres of government land, and the recording of a notice claiming the same as q mining cla i'm, that such proceedings would make that much of the public land mineral? don't think anyone would maintain such proposition.
 "Now to the point at issue: It is conceded that prior to the occupancy of any portion of the town of Nome for townsile purposes all of the ground within the corporation of Nome had been staked and recorded as mineral land, under the mining laws of the United States. and a discovery of gold thereon made. Prima facie (which means at first yiew), such appropria- tion segregates the land from appro- priatiOn by any other person or assOcia- tiOn of persons. But that does not con clusively prohibit people from going on these mining locations and using them for tOwnSite purposes, as is said in Bonner vs. Meikle, 82 Fed. Re-, page 699: Both (meaning the townsile seller and the mining claimant) are entitled to the equal protection of the aw. Although cOmplainants have not connected themselves with any govern ment title, nor sought in any manner to secure such title, yet they (the town site settlers) have such poSsessOry right to the land upon which their buildings have been erected as will prevent others not having any title from the government from entering thereon and taking their property, without first establishing a superior right thereto
 That language was used by Judge Hawley, that distinguished federal judge for the district of Nevada. He, along with Justices Field, Beatty and Terry. has given to the settlers on the public domain such just, sound and plain rules relative to their rights that it is said their decisions are the end of the law relative to the final rights of settlers and claimants on the public lands.
 "NOw, what is the present status of the ground on which the town of Nome is located? It is this: First. it is claimed by the various mining locators and their grantOrs, under the mining laws of the United States. Second, it is claimed by 5000 townsite claimants, wLO maintain that it is more valuable for tOwnsite purposes than it is for mining purposes, and hence claimed under the tOwnsite laws of the United States. Neither the tOwnsite claim ants nor the mining claimants have undertaken to connect their various locations and claims with the govern ment title. Both have the same rights to occupy it. It is for the government to decide which it will do whenever either or both claimants undertake to obtain the title to the ground.
 If the city of Nome applies for a patent undoubtedly the mining claim ants will protest against the issuance of the patent and set up their mining locations in bar of the rights of the townsite settlers, and, vice versa, if the mining claimants apply for patent, the townsite settlers, instead of adversing, would protest against the issuance of a patent to the mining claimants and assert and allege that it is either non- mineral land or is more valuable for townsite purposes than for mining pur poses. The character ofsthe land then would be an issue of fact, and. in my opinion, it is in the exclusive jurisdic- tiOn of the sccretary of the interior to determine that question and would ex. clude the courts. Now what most important question this question oi fact is to everyone who has town lol in Nome?
 "Whether the district court oi Alaska or the secretary of the interior is to determine this question does no, change the question of fact whether il is mineral land or land subject to entry for townsite purposes. Now, the mining locator is required to show more thai the fact that it is mineral land. l will concede that the whole Seward penin