Bisbee daily review., 1908-11-10
WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT
 FOREST MINES
Federal Decision Contains Nice Distinction in Regard to Valid Claims, and May Deter Hasty Locations.

The recent agitation hgainst the forestry service on the ground that 1t interferes with the rights of citi- zens to prospect for minerals upon the public domain. naturally summons ones attention to the United States statutes bearing upon these rights. From the very foundation of the gov ernment, taking it's cue from the com mon law and the custom of England. the national leg slatu has invested in the citizens as sovereign the rights in all minerals underlying the public lands, subject, of course, to the stat utes of the United States. Conse- quently, without congressional act, the setting apart of forest reserve cannot prohibit the citizen from lay ing claim to such mineral. The only restrictions under which ne must la. bor are comprehended in the terms of the statutes affecting the location of mineral ca ms.
 The interest at the moment, there fore, resides in the question as to what constitutes a valid location Manifestly, prospector cannot as- sert T. gnts in a forest reserve that he could not legally assert upon any oth- CT portion of the public domain though some of the, critics of the for estry service apparently believe that this should happen. What the forest CTS have aimed at is the enforcement of the law, and this they do not ther.- selves accomplish, save by bringing eyasions of the law to the department of the interior. It is largely because the department of the interior finds it well nigh imposs ble to prevent un- warranted or pretended locations in other reg ons that the vigilance of the forestry bureau has been reproved as a hardship.
 It so happens that a nice sta-ement of what constitutes a valid location appears in digest of federal decis- ions just issued. We .can do no bet ter than to quote it, for the benefit of those who think that the location of supposed mineral claims should be feated as a perfunctory get.
 "To constitute a valid location, there must be such. a discovery of mineral as taat an ordinarily prudent man, not nece sari'v a miner. would be justified in expending his time anG money thereon, in the development of the property. While mere possibil- ity that the ground claimed contains gold, or that. there are mere indica- tions of the existence of minerals in the ground, Is not sufficient to justify prudent person in expending money and work in exploration of it; yet where the evidence shows the actual existence of gold in the claim, the To- cator is entitled to strengthen the Troof upon any of the elements which enter into what Is comprehended by discovery. He may supplement the showing that mineral actually did exist by proving, as ground of jusu- fication for the expenditure of money and time, thpt the adjacent grounf in the same gulch is rich in the same mineral, or that adjacent claims were developed into paying mines after de yelopment upon similar snowines of mineral. or that geological conditions are so similar that, from the character of the mineral discovered it iS resson- able to expect to find mineral in 7a!- uab'e quantities in the exploitation or the alleged claim. But there mT'I be actual discovery of mineral within the linits of the claim before valid To- cation can be established.
 If this be a hardship then 1t f. the fault of the mining law, not that of the forestry bureau. If the gnvern- ment agents seek to prohibit prospect ing that is, Cfc searGn for mineral showings, in the forest reserves, there would then be real grnund for com plaint