The Goldfield news. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1904-1911, 1906-04-27
UNLAWFUL TO.
LOCATE CLAIMS


Mineral Land
since the recent sensational allega-
tions of illegal locations of valuable
mineral lands by United states deputy
mineral surveyors in Nevada and else
where. United states Surveyor General
Matthew Kyle has taken occasion to
caution all such Deputies in this district
that they are forbidden by law to make
such locations or become interested In
them and that they would be held to
strict accountability for any violation
or evasion of the statutes in this re-
spect. The number of mineral deputies
I'm Nevada Is now more han one hun
dred, many of them residing In other
states. or of comparatively recent ar
rival in Nevada.
Mr.. Thomas L. Darby of Goldfeld.
Nevada, a deputy mineral surveyor and
mining engineer of much experience and
ability, having raised the question as
to the rights of himself and other depu-
ties to locate mining claims the matter
was referred by General Kyle to the
commissioner of the general land office
at Washington, who replied as follows:
Department of the Interior, General
Land ONCE, Washington, D.. c., April 4.
190s-United states Surveyor General.
Reno, New: Sir-I am in receipt of your
letter of March 20. 1906. in which you
enclose q letter from Mr.. Thomas l..
Darby, United States deputy mineral
surveyor. stating that he has closed his
office at Goidheld permanently and in
tends to prospect for mines in Nevada
and that he does not wish to violate the
regulations. he asks your office whether
= ---.s-~a a. ~o~t., HE onnofnfmQnf
as deputy mineral surveyor before he
can locate mining claims
mi. Darby submits a statement to
the effect that an 'employe of the gen.
eral land Office is not a term which
applies to a deputy mineral surveyor.
you state hat the question involved
seems to be whether deputy mineral
surveyors as such are within the pro
hibition of section AZ, u. S. r. s., as
construed by the department in the cir
cular of October 20, 1905. You request
an early reply for the reason that this
matter is being much discussed IN the
public press of your state.
I'm this connection I would call your
attention to office letter NJ of August
81, 1904. addressed to your office, and
to circular of February S, 1901, dden-
tical in language with said circular of
October 20, 1905), copies of which are
herewith enclosed.
"In the case of Floyd VS.. Montgom-
cry GIG L. D., 1920, the department. at
ter referring to certain authorities,
states:
"'From an examination of these au-
tnorities and a consideration of the
language and manifest purpose of the
section, 1t seems clear that its pro-
hibitive provisions embrace a deputy
mineral surveyor
'Whereupon the department express
ly overruled the prior cases in conflict
with such holding.
'.See also case of Frank A. Maxwell
GO L. D., 76); Alfred Baltzell ct al.
(29 L. D., 333), n w. H. Lenngwell
$50 L. D., 1890.
'In care of Ben L. Cress, a United
states deputy mineral surveyor for the
district of Colorado, it was held by Of
fee letter N to the register and re-
ceiyer at Leadville, Colorado, dated
February 16, 1905, that such surveyor
secured no interest in or title to a min
ing claim by reason of being one of the
co-locators thereof. and his name was
thereupon stricken from the final GER
tifcate.
I'm case of Lovagnino VS.. Uhlig (26
Utah - the supreme court of Utah held
that a deputy mineral surveyor was dis
qualified to make locations of mining
claims. The supreme court of the
United States, in passing upon the same
case. did not find 1t necessary to dis
cuss this point. See 1913 U. S., 443. Very
respectfully,
~. II. FIMPLE,
Assistant Commissioner"
This ruling of the commissioner
leaves no uncertainty about the ques-
ton and Surveyor General Kyle will
notify all his deputies that hereafter no
official survey of a mining claim will
be ordered or approved in which the
name of any deputy appears as locator,
co-claimant or grantee.