Bisbee daily review., 1903-05-01
HoLplNe MINING CLAIMS.

A Review subscriber al tombstone sends us the following:
 Having noticed in your paper of present date, that you have previously stated that when a claim holder did all his assessment work for several claims on one claim he had no abso lute guaantee that it would protect every claim" Now it appears that some one has taken issue with you on this point and furnishes you with what he claims is authority to the contrary which you have seen fit to publish with the final remark: Now let ev. cry man judge for himself from the words of the authority above quoted"
 Now as it appears to me. the au- thority which he quotes is only ap- plicable when applying for patent to mineral ground, therefore if I am correct, the so called authority can only be considered misleading. and possibly might cause some poor pros pector the loss of valuable mining property, through a misconstruction of the requirements of the mining law. As this is matter upon which every prospector should posses all informa- ton obtainable I herewith encloe you a clipping from the Mining & Sci entific Press of March 21. 1903. and would request that you re-publish it for the benefit of your many readers, ] believing it will be the means of clearing their minds about a matter of vital importance, and of one in which there has been much difference of opinion throughout mining sections:
 When by reason of failure to per form the required assessment work on mining claim the location be- comes vacant under the provisions Of the law. there is TO forfeiture until a second party locates and appropriates the claim. When this has been prop erly done the domination and control over the property pass to the latter, and thereafter the relocator is clothed with the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface in cluded within the lines of location (Revised Statutes, Sec. 2322). It is the general law that all improvements of any character upon public lands of the United States pass to the purch- aser from the government Collins vs. Bartlett, A Cal. 371; Pennybecker vs. McDougal, 4S Cal, 163). and the relocator holds his estate by purchase One canuot set up equities in i'm provements against the government, or a purchaser from it, and state stat utes which permit their removal after the land has passed into private own ership are void. It has been frequent ly held that machinery, such as en- zines, boilers. hoisting works, mills. pumps, and things of like character, annexed to the soil for mining, be- comes part of the freehold Merritt vs. Judd. IA Cal, 60). and as such they will pass to the relocator. The ma chinery so acquired can not be claimed as improvements when application for patent is made. While the above ap- plies to machinery buildings and like improvements, ore dumped on govern ment mineral land likewise becomes Ol lOSdlOI NHO ldht5 up the land on which the ore has been placed in the same manner that tail ings may be taken by whosoever may claim them when on the public do- main
 h the San Francisco Examiner of the 27th inst, the following answer 10 correspondent is germai to the subject included in the above: Steve w Thorne. Hillside, iz,-That clause of Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that where a number of claims are held in common the aggregate expenditure that would be necessary to hold all the claims may be made upon one claim, has been held to mean that such work or ex- penditure must be for the purpose of developing all the claims. Therefore if work is done upon one claim it could not be held to apply to a claim 2.0O0 or 5000 feet distant unless it did act ually serve to develop such claim"