Bisbee daily review., 1906-05-10

obtained:
 Sir: Ajril 13, 1904, Martin o'Hare filed application for patent to the Mountain View lode mining claim, survey No. 1852, Phoenix (formerly Tucson,) Arizona. land district. June 26, 1904, W. H. Brophy and eight other persons filed joint corroborated pro- test, in which, amongst other things, 1t is alleged, in substance and effect, that the land embraced in the mining claim, is within the town site of Bis bee; that the mineral applicant has failed to discover any vein, lode or de- posit of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold. silver. cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or otheg valuable depos- its as required by the mining laws; that he has failed to expend $500 in lator and improvements on the claim; and that the application for patent is not made in good faith to acquire the land as a mining claim, but to secure title thereto because of its value for building purposes, and also to secure title 10 valuable improvements on the land by the protestants.
 A hearing on the protest was order ed by the local officers, and had Oc- tober 26, 1904, at which the praties appeared and submitted evidence. On that day John s. Taylor. mayor of the incorporated town of Bisbee, present ed his corroborated protest against the mineral application, which protest contains substantially the same aIIe. gations as made in that of Brophy ct al. This protest was received by the local officers, but, so far as shown by the record, no action was taken thereon by them,
 It is shown by the record, that March s, 1904, the mayor of the town of Bisbee filed townsite declaratory statement, embracing, with other lands. the land here involved; that entry thereof was duly allowed, Oc- tober r, 1904; that April 10, 1905, O'Hare filed his protest against the issuance of patent upon the townsite entry, insofar as it conflicts with the land embraced in his mineral applica- tion, on the alleged ground that prior to the townsite entry the land had been segregated from the public do- main by such application; that April 2I, 1905, your office discussed the pro test on the stated ground that the is- stance of townsite patent would not injuriously affect any rights that O'Hare might have acquired under his application for patent, or otherwise under the mining laws; and that upon appeal. the department by decision of July 25, 1905, (unreported,) affirmed the decision of your office.
 April 26, 1905, the local officers, aft fi,-a nf nUs dence submitted at the hearing on the protest of Brophy ct al, found that the mineral applicant had failed to dis cover mineral on his claim of quan- tity and value sufficient to entitle him to patent under the mining laws, and that he had failed to make improve ments or to perform labor to the value of $500 on the claim. They recom- mended that the application for patent be rejected. Upon appeal, your office, by decision of November 20, 19Uo, vUu- sidering the protest by the mayor of the town of Bisbee as properly to be disposed of under the hearing had, held, amongst other things, in sub stance, that the protestanIs have failed to show affirmatively that the land en- braced in the mineral application is not mineral in character, and have failed also to show that the improve ments placed on the claim fall short of the statutory requirement of $500 in value. The finding of the local of fcers was reversed and the protests were held for dismissal.
 Brophy ct al. and the mayor of the town of Bisbee have filed separate ap' peals to the department.
 The mineral applicant has made a motion to dismiss the appeal by Bro phy ct al. on the ground that the pro testants are without interest in the premises. and therefore have no right of appeal. The evidence shows that eight of the nine protestants claim lots covering portions of the land embraced