The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1910-01-16
GOVERNMENT LOSES
LAND CASE
EUGENE DAY AND CHARLES
BURNS WILL GET PATENTS
ON MINING CLAIMS.

made by the officials of the Missoula
land office for many months was that
| made yesterday, in regard to the case
of the United States against Charles
E. Burns of Saltese. involving the
right of the latter to make final proof
on number OF mining claims near
Saltese. BY the terms Of the decision.
the government fails to make out
case and the claimant is allowed pat
ents on the claims.
On June l. 1908. Mr.. Burns and
! Eugene II. Day, the latter one of the
best known mining men of the Occur
d Afenes, made mineral applicat ton
/ for the following claims: The Utah.
Gertie, Gertie Fractional. Bryan. Bry-
an Fractional. r. & s. Mabel Frac-
tional. Mabel. Cross Vein. Red Jacket,
Blue Bird. Tam O'Shanter and Bryan
milisite. The claims are situated in
township 20 north of range 81 west.
within the limits of the Lolo national
forest. On December ., of the same
year. Expert Miner McElroy. of the
forest service. submitted reports on the
entries, which We're favorable to the
Bryan. Bryan Fractional and Gertie
lode claims. but adverse as to the
B. & s.. Mabel Fractional. Gertie
Fractional, Utah. Red Jacket. Cross
Vein, Blue Bird and Tam OiShanseS.
OF the first five named. it was alleged
that no valid discovery of mineral
rock had been made, and of the 9TH
ers it was claimed that, besides the
fact that no mineral rock had been
discovered, the sum of $500 had not
been expended on each for develop
ment and Improvement. The claim
ants were notified of the protest ard
the case came to a hearing before
Register Arms and Receiver Houston
on october %. 1909. The government
was represented by w. NJ. Aiken. law
officer for district No. ! OF the forest
service. and J. II. Skinner. a special
agent. John II. Wourms of Wallace
looked after the interests of the claim
ants.
Many witnesses were examined
among them being Eugene II. Day.
who is interested in the claims in
question. He testified that he had
expended $4,000 in improvements and
development work on the claims. The
mineral examiners for the government
testified that valid discoveries of
mineral rock had not been made. their
evidence being flatly contradicted by
a number OF witnesses for the claim
ants. including both Burns and Day.
The land office officials held that
mineral in place admits of many def
nitions and various opinions" and
quoted many authorities. 1t was
brought out that Burns had spent IL
years following up development work
on the claims. His co-partner, Day
has had extensive experience in min
ing. and is following the same meth
DDS in the development of the claims
as were pursued in the development
of the Hercules, one of the largest
lead producing mines of the world.
The claimants claimed that the sur
face indications of the claims under
protest are similar to those of the
Hercules.
After reviewing the testimony. the
register and receiver found that the
discoveries upon the above named
claims. as here developed by the tes-
timony. is rock in place. bearing min
eral. and constitutes vein or lode
within perview of the statute"
The testimony disclosed that the
claims are being developed by tunnels
and drifts from the Bryan. under the
| direction of A. A. Booth. one of the
best mining engineers of the Occur
d,Alenes, and his evidence was to the
| fact that the method pursued is the
most advantageous for the develop
ment of all the claims. The register
and receive" maintain that whether
| general improvement or system Of
| improvements is effective for the
common benefit of all the claims to
! which it is developed is question of
| mining law. and must be shown ac-
cordingly."
By the terms of yesterdays deci-
sion, made after an extensive exami-
| nation of the testimony, the land Of
| flee officials recommend that patents
be issued to Charles r. Burns for all
the claims except the Tam O'Shanter.
! which is not being developed from the
Bryan claim. and if affidavits show
ing that $500 has been expended upon
the Tam O'Shanter are made by the
claimants. then patent should issue
To that claim as Well.