The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1903-05-05
Inrportan. Decision by General Land
Office.
FULL TEXT OF THE OPINION
Defines the Policy of the Land De-
partment Relative to the Mineral
or Non-Minerai Character Of the
SoiI-Land Office at MissouIa Re-
versed.

IL lie register dHu IeCelNtI VI lue
Missoua land office have received
from the general land Office an opin-
ion in the contest case of Norman B.
Hotter VS.. David Lindsey. which is
one of the greatest Importance to
Montana as it defines tina policy of
the land Office relative to the deter
mination of the mineral or non-min-
eral character of the land. Because
CT it's Importance, the full text of the
opinion is here given. 1t will be
noted that the decision of the Mis-
soula land office is reversed. the gen.
eral land Office contending that there
must be mineral indications upon the
lend itself to warrant it's classified
ton as mineral. the fact that ada
cent land has been demonstrated to
be mineral in character counting for
nothing. The opinion follows:
Register and Receiver. Missoula,
Mont: Sirs-May 3, 1901, David
F. Lindsey filed declaratory state
ment No 1888, under the act of June
8. 1872 az Statutes, 1861, for the
north half of the southeast quarter,
and lots 1 and 2. section II. township
S north, range 81 west May 20, 1901,
notice was given of his intention to
make final proof on said claim on
June 30, 1901. Proof was duly sub
mitted as advertised, and on July I,
1901. prior to the issuance of final
certificate and receipt of entry to
Lindsey, one Norman B. Hotter filed
an affidavit of protest, alleging that
9. portion of lot | and the northeast
quarter of the southeast quarter of
said section is mineral in character
and covered by two mining claims,
known and called the Hard Pan and
Granite Block. of which he is the
present owner In view of said pro-
test you issued a notice for a hear
ing. setting August 26, 1901 as the
date therefor The case was cOntin-
ued to September 20, 1901. on which
date the parties appeared and testi-
mony was submitted.
"On January 8, 1902, you rendered
a decision finding that the land in
question should be classified as min
eral in character, and recommending
that said declaratory statement No.
1883 be Cancelled to the extent of the
conflict of the Hard Pan and Granite
Block lode mining claims, and that
Lindsey be permitted to purchase I'M
der said act. the balance of the land
claimed by him. February 10, 1902,
h., c1 cd
and with your letter of April 2S, 1902,
YOU forwarded the record to this
office.
Il quote the following from your
decision of January Q. 1902: The
testimony offered on behalf of con
testant was to the effect that the
Hard Pan and Granite Block mining
claims adioined the patented claims
known as the Pauline and Granite
Reef, included in mineral entry No
81, and were situated on lot I, north
east quarter of the southeast quar-
range q west; that the surface OF
these two mining claims is similar
ir all respects to that of the Pauline
lode mining claim: that the group OF
claims patented in the mining entr!
No. 81 have been worked quite eX
,ensively: that from the Elizabeth
lode mining claim, included in sale
mining entry No. 81. tunnels hav'
keen run for the purpose of develop
ing the Hard Pan and Granite Block
that the ore in these patented claim
extends toward the Hard Pan an,
Granite Block mining claims situate
or the land in controversy and in tn
opinion of the witnesses testifying i
behalf of said Hotter the indication
upon the surface of the claims i
controversy and in the undergroun
workings of the claims adjoining ar
sufficient to induce reasonabl,
practical, prudent mining man to e,
pend labor and money in developin
the Hard Pan and Granite Block wit
the expectation of finding sntliciel
Gre within the limits of said tW
ciaims to make them paying mines
that there is concentration situate
upon these mining claims about G.
feet from the Hard Pan lode mimi
claim. of 120 tons capacity per da,
that the ore in these patented lod
is between TOO and 500 feet in wild
and runs in sOuthwesterly a,
rortheasterly direction, and could n
possibly miss the two claims up,
the land in contest
From an examination of the t,
timony submitted it appears that t
ore bodies upon the adjoining pate,
cd claims are not contiguous, but q
found in pockets or chutes; that
great deal of mineral has been tax
from said mining claims, but that
some years they have been lying i'd
the work thereon having eviden
heen found to be no longer prOfital
The tunnels run from the Elijah
lode mining claim for the purpose