Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1904-02-27
The Martin Bill.

There is apparently division OF opin.
ion among our people in regard to the
bill which Representative Martin has
introduced in congress. 1t is an amend
ment to the homestead law as applied to
settlers on the Black Hills forest reserve.
The law which was passed and became
operative some two years ago enabled
every citizen who had settled upon
strip of agricultural lanif in the reserve
to acquire homestead Of 100 acres, pro-
vided his settlement on the land dated
back to September 10th, 1893. The
present proposed amendment does not
extend the time to make homestead ap-
plications under any circumstances. 1t
is simply to enact law whereby those
who purchase lands settled upon prior
to the date mentioned might go on and
make homestead the same as the origin
al settler might have done had he not
sold. Now our comment upon this bill
is this.
If the original law is all right the
amendment is all right. And this for
the reason that it does not confer upon
the purchaser any rights or privileges
which the original settler did not PCS
sess. But we have an objection which
+ runs back to the original law, that is if we
have correct understanding of that
law. We have read Judge Granville
Benefits explanation of that law in the
Pioneer-Times of February 18th and still
we are not sufficiently enlightened, and
we remain unreconciled and unsatisfied.
The Judge says that no land containing
mineral or valuable timber can be taken
under that law by the homesteader. And
yet In the face Of this we do not know of
a single homestead which has been taken
in Custer county that does not contain
one or both veins of mineral and valu-
able timber. We have furthermore
been told by officers of the forest reserve
and the land department that whenever
the homesteader has received his patent
from the government, everything within
his boundary lines belongs to the home
steader. We are told by those who are
clothed with authority to enforce the
law, or to report any violation of that
rule, that the prospcctor who goes upon
such land (after patent has been issued)
is trespasser and will be subject to ar
rest. Now if Judge Bennett will answ er
and say that these are not the facts, and
that this is not the law as it is being ad-
ministered in this county, and prove it,
and make it plain so that we can under
stand it, we will be much obliged to him.
We do not object to The farmer owning
the surface and the soil above bed rock.
We do not object to law that compels
the miner to pay the appraised damage
when he digs hole in such surface land
or soil. We do not object to the home
tsteaders cattle ranging and eating the
grass that grows on the miners claims.
We do not object to his fencing in the
land including the miners claim, pro-
viding he leaves a passable road way
and convenient gate. But what We do
object to is the locking up mineral IN the
heart of mountain where the miners
pick can never reach it, and the miners
foot dare not tread. We do know that
we are living in the heart of mining
district. We do know that the whole of
that portion Of the Hills covered with
timber is stripped with quartz veins
carrying the precious metal. We do
know that these quartz veins under run
some portion of every quarter section
that which we have seen that has been
applied for as a homestead. What we
would like to know is, that the law that
is presumed to protect the miner in a
mining district does really protect him
in plying his avocation. That he may
dig hole wherever he finds mineral,
and where he has reason to think there
is an undeveloped mine.
q. w. RoBBINs.