Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1904-05-18
IMPORTANT
MINING LAW
Congress Passes a Bill Which Changes
Mode of Establishing Location
of Patented Claims.
1T WILL PREVENT LITIGATION
Many Conflicting Claims Will be
Avoided and Mining Men viii
Save Thousands of Dollars.


throughout the west are interested In
a bill that passed the house a few
days before congress adjourned last
week. The purpose of the measure
is to change the mode of establishing
the location of patented mining claims
and to prevent conflicts which have
arisen through inaccurate surveys
and clerical errors. Under the bill.
which was introduced Senator
Teller OF Colorado last January the
monuments established wnen the
claims were located originally will
constitute the highest authority as to
what land is patented.
Rulinr of Department.
by a recent ruling the interior de-
partment has held that the ties of the
patent survey to land monuments
should determine what land had been
patented and this led To serious com
plications as the ties are often in
correctly made and the monuments
themselves are sometimes changed.
Thus in Colorado claims that had
been patented for a number of years
were found open to location and filed
on by others as the original surveys.
being wrong. showed the claim to be
in an entirely different place. What
was common i'm Colorado could hap
pen in Montana or any other mining
state.
These errors have occurred through
mistakes made by mineral land sur
veyors. In many instances the survey
has been tied to a section corner di-
rectly the e to the one intend
ed For instance, the northwest cor
ner has been designated by the sur
veyor as the tie point, whereas the
southeast corner was the n actual
ly tied to and vice versa. thus plac-
ing the patented claim on territory
perhaps a mile away from the ground
for which a patent has been sought
and upon which development work
had been done. Under the ruling OF
the interior department the patent had
TO stand or the patentee was. Obliged
to ask for a resurvey and pay the
costs for two surveys for the same
land
Text of the Bill.
The bill vas introduced in the
house by Representative Brooks anc
passed with but slight alteration. II
is as follows:
1.-THE description of vein or lode
claims upon surveyed lands shall des
ignate the location of the claims with
reference 10 the lines of public sur
vey. but need not conform Herewith
but where patents have been issued
for claims upon unsurveyed lands
the surveyors general. in extending
the public survey. shall adjust the
same TO the boundaries of said pat
ented claims so as in no case TO in
terfere with or change the true loca
ton of such claims as they are Off
ciaily established upon the ground
Where patents have issued for min
craI lands, those lands only shall bt
segregated and shall be deemed Il
be patented which are bounded by
the lines actually marked. defined
and established upon the ground b,
the monuments of the official survey
upon which the patent ground is
based. and the surveyors general II
executing subsequent patent surveys
whether upon surveyed or unsurveyef
lands shall be governed accordingly
The said monuments shall at al
times constitute the highest authority
as to what land Is patented, and II
case of any conflict between the sait
monuments of such patented claims
and the descriptions Of said claims IL
the patents issued therefor the mon
uments on the ground shall govern
and erroneous or inconsistent de
scriptions shall give way thereto"
Approved by Mining Men.
The easure as passed by congress
Is practically a law, as there Is NJ
doubt but that IL will receive the sig
nature of the president. Mineral lant
surveyors and mining men generally
highly approve the measure and say
il will work wonders and that its ben
efits will be far reaching. It will BIZ
the means of saving thousands OF dol
lars TO mining men and to the state
and will do away with no end of lit
cation between mining companies
which would doubtless result, In
many cases, In rightful owners losing
their valuable holding through enron
eous SURVEYS and other causes In
Montana no important claims Of this
kind have come up for hearing.
A Colorado Case.
One such case arising In Colorado
is that of the Shafter mine. The mine
had produced millions of dollars and
had been patented more than twent,
years. Yet Notwithstanding these
facts under the former ruling the
claim was jumped because the orig