Bisbee daily review., 1903-01-08

 discovery of vein in place, and goes so far as to decide that the prospec- tor has the right to be protected ia his l possession of the claim so long as he is diligently following up the indica- tions, and that he will be entitled to full claim on completing his location. i And while this is an extreme case, we believe it does not go so | far as to render it unnec- essary for the prospector to con- plete his location by a discovery of vein, or its equivalent, in place Ad- | prospector a right on the plea as against the actual discoverer of the vein itself. yet it does not go so far as | to decide that such discovery would 1 be sufficient to stake and record and ! leave to the protection of the law. [ Even under such circumstances, as above stated, accompanied by actual | possession and posting of notice, the i question of prior discovery, We be- | lieye, would still be discovery, We be- l lieve. would still be a question for the | jury in the event of a contest. ! For a completed location, a loca- ! tion on float ore. has been expressly
 
 where the opening did not show the vein. or lode in place. Notwithstanding { the fact several tons of ore had been taken out, but the vein itself had not been reached or defined.
 ! We have already observed, that the United States laws pertaining to the location of mineral land has been sup plemented by state ard territorial laws, and such to a certain extent has the legislature of Arizona done and we note. for the present purpose, that it i has enacted the following in regard t. discovery shaft, and the necessity | of discovery in the shaft.
 ITO sink a discovery shaft in the claim to a depth of at least ten feet from the lower part of the rim of the shaft at the surface, and deeper. if necessary, until in place "-Revised i Statutes of Arizona, Sec. 3234, sub- division 9
 Now the mineral in contemplation in the above section of the statute
 must be such we take it, as is specified in the federal statute, namely, gold, silver. copper, lead, zinc, platinum,
 cinnabar, etc. Of course, the term mineral, when it is said there must be
 mineral in place to constitute a valid | location, does not mean that the min eral must be in the free state. What is meant, is that the discovery shaft,
 or it's equivalent, open cut, adit or tur- nel, must show mineral bearing rock,
 or more accurately, rock bearing min eral and as stated before, such as
 statute recognizes. In cases of con- test. the consensus of legal opinion is, that a showing only of gangue, or vein matter. without a further show ing, by assay if necessary, of metals mentioned in the act of congress is
 not sufficient proof of a discovery. or
 value
 Of course, the discovery need not
 show pay ore. It is sufficient if it con tain any volue. Neither is the size or
 extent of the vein, ledge. lode or de-
 posit material to the validity of dis
 covery. If the prospector once finds
 a lode or deposit in place he may law
 fully locate, and the value or size of
 the lode or deposit, as compared with
 the size or value of which it is at
 tempted to establish an adverse right,
 is immaterial
 It has been q Eded in some states,
 that discovery dtside of the discov-
 cry shaft. and fore adverse rights had intervened. fould be sufficient to , valid location, jut that depends upon the wording Q the state law upon which those decisio2s rest, so accord. inly under the Colorado statute. which
 We believe similar to our own. requir- ing mineral in place in the discovery shaft, it has been held that discovery cannot be outside of the discovery
 shaft. There are many reasons sup. porting that decision. and which space ! does not permit us to discuss. In Montana it has been held that the dis covery shaft need not disclose a lode if the same is shown elsewhere on the claim but the Montana statute. is somewhat different from the Arizona
 statute.
 The point where a lode or deposit , is discovered is, of course, immaterial
 and the discovery shaft need not be , sunk at the first point of discovery. f person has the right to choose the place for his discovery shaft, the place
 from which to establish the bound , aries of his claim.
 f Again, there must be separate dis : covery for each claim. A discovery i must be treated as an entirety. and the ? basis of but one location. It cannot 5 support two locations having a com : mon end line that bisects the discov r cry shaft
 McInstry vs. Clark. 4, Montana, 370 5 In conclusion let us say, there is nc
 lawful method of acquiring title to th'
 mineral lands of the United States, ex g cept by compliance with the mining