Bisbee daily review., 1914-02-15
DEHORN|NG OF
 FOREST MEN
Decision Rendered in the Yard Case Sets to Right Some of the Abuses Practiced at the Expense of Mining.

recently received the full opinion of
 Secretary A. A. Jones, reversing the
 department of the interior in the fam
 GUS Yard case, which conferred ths
 illegal right upon forest officials to
 attack the validity of claim. wheth- CT agrcultural or mineral prior to the time when an application was formally presented to the government
 of the United States and before the | land department acquired jurisdiction. | The syllabus of that case was as f-l- l lows:
 The land department has full au-
 thority. of it's own motion or at the
 instance of others, to inquire into and [ determne whether mining locations within national forests were preceded by the requisite discovery of mineral I and whether the lands are of the char
 acter subject tc occupation and pur.
 chase under the mining laws, not
 withstanding the locator has not ap-
 piled for patent, and if the locations
 be found to be invalid, the lands GOV : cred thereby will be administered as part of the public domain, subject to } the reservation for forest purposes. l wittcut regard to the locations" The Yard Decision
 Now comes Andrew A. Jones, citi-
 zen of New Mexico, now first assist ; ant secretary of the interior and holds , in the case "ex parta J. F. Nichols and Cy Smith, coming before him . from the United States land office office and the commissioner of the general land office, affirmed the opin' } at La Grande, ore. wherein the said - ion in the Yard case. and reversing . former Secretary of the Interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock and says:
 The proceeding was instituted un- b der authority of the department hold r ing in H. II. Yard, ct al., (3S l.. D.
 50) upon the report of an examiner
 of mining claims of the forest service s upcR which the following charges - were formulated and served upon - the claimants
 T "l That there have been no dis t coveries of minerals upon the lands l. embraced in said claims or either oi s them.
 "2. That said claims are not helc y in good faith for mining purposes t but for the purpose of speculation g and the rental of the lands to parties V for grazing purposes.
 s- "A hearing upon said charges wal e duly had before the local officers
 who rendered decision recommend r. ing that the claims be declared null B and void upon the ground that ther' d had been no discovery of minera s upon the land. The finding and rec e ommendation of the local cfficeri B. were affirmed by the commissioner o s the general land office, as has beeI o stated.
 e After careful consideration of thu D. question presenaed by this record y the department is convinced that tn IS policy followed by the land depart IS ment since the decision in the Yar' IT case, supra, is entirely indefenslble l' whether viewed from an administra tive or legal standpoint.
 l. While the title to land remains fl e the United States and controyersie Il arise between occupants. thereo
 whether agricultural or mineral. neitl a CT party having invoked the jurisdiC n ton of the land department for tn ii purpose of acquiring the ultimat 'f title, the courts have the power [ IT determine their rights. hased upo y the law of possession and all othe s' questions necessarily involved Linal on Mines paragraph 10s, citing Maj oi ques vs. Frisbie, 101 U. s. 473, AT Ie Especially is this true of valid lC E. cation of mineral lands, which is proI
 erty and, while maintained as rt
 quired by law. has the effect of ,. grant of a right to the exclusive .poi ,r session thereof against the Unite " States as we'll as any other party
 plaintiff or defendant. (See Belk VI a Meagher, 104 O. s., 279, and Gwilli Id vs. Donelen. 115 U. s., 45). Bein 10 thus a vested legal right enforcibl ar in the courts. they necessarily hay ,e Jurisdiction to determine whether tn 51 right does or does not exist This j'