Weekly journal-miner., 1908-11-11

teffercs with the rights of citizens to prospect for minerals upon the public domain, naturally summons ones at tention Co the United States statutes bearing upon these rights From the very foundation of the government, taking its cue from the common law and the customs of England, the mo tional legislature has invested in the citizen a- sovereign the rights m all minerals underlying the public lands, subject, of course. Co the statutes of inc United State. Consequently, with. out congressional act. the setting apart of q forest reserve cannot prohibit the citizen from laying claim to such min erals The only restrictions under which he must labor arc comprehendcd in the terms of the statutes affecting inc location of mineral claims
 The interest at the moment, there fore. resides in the question as to what constitutes valid location. Mani. fe'tly prospector cannot assert rights m n forest reserve that he could not legally assert upon any other portion of the public domain, though some of the critics of tho forestry ser. vice apparently believe that this should happen. What the forcs.crs have aimed at is the enforcement of the law, and this they do not them. selves accomplish, save by bringing evasions of the law to the department of the interior. Ii is largely because the department of the interior snds it well nigh impossible 10 prevent un warranted or pretendcd locations in other regions that the vigilance of the forestry bureau has been reproved as n hardship.
 II SO happens ,ha, nice statement of what constitutes C valid location appears in a digest of federal decisions just issued We can do no better than
 " hu'l' Ats i'I tH' bfh'ut pi thONe who think that the location of suppos el mineral claims should be treated as a perfunctorv act:
 "ro constitute q valid location. there must be such discovery of min crai as that an ordinarily prudent man. not necessarily miner, would be justified in eSpcnding his time and money thereon. in the development of the property. While mere possibility that the ground claimed contains gold, nr that there are mere indications of the existence of minerals in the ground. k not sufficient to justify a prudent person in cxpending money and work in exploration of it: yet where inc evidence shows the actual existence of gold in the claim, the To. catOr IS entitled to strengthen the proof upon any of the clements which enter into what is comprehendcd by discovery. He may supplement the showing that mineral actually did ex. ist by proving, as n ground of justifi cation for the expenditure of money and time, that the adjacent ground in the same guleh is rich in the same mineral, or that adjacent claims were developed into paying mines after de. velopmen, upon similar showings of mineral, or that geological conditions are SO similar that, from the character of the mineral discovered, it is reason able to expect so find mineral in valu able quantities in the exploitation of the alleged claim. But there must be actual discovery of mineral within the limits of the claim before valid To- cation can be established
 If this be n hardship, then it is the fault of the mining law, not that of the forestry bureau. If the govern. ment agents seek to prohibit prospect. ing, that is, the search for mineral showings, in the forest reserves, there would then be real ground for com. plaint.