The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-10-12
CLAIM OWNER WINS
IN PATENT CONTEST
BY FORESTRY SERVICE
Decision by Commissioner of
General Land Office--CIaims
on North Side
.HE COMMISSIONER of the gen

of the Occur dAlene land office
with notifications. in the contest case
brought by the forest service against
the issuance of patent to the Carbon
ate No. 1 group of claims on Bear
gulch about eight miles east of Muir
ray There are 10 claims in the group,
for all of which patent was protested.
The claims are owned by George s.
Auerbach. of Hartford, Conn, who
applied for patent through his attor-
ney Therrett Towles. of this city, on
October H. 1920 On December 20,
1920, the purchase price was paid and
final certificate issued. On December
II, 1920, protest was filed by the for
est service against the application on
the following grounds:
Charges.
THAT the lands included within the
Carbonate No. l, Carbonate No. 2,
Grandma. Goat Elk. Kitty Murray,
Wallace, Deer Lowland, Utahu and
Cricket lode mining claims are not
mineral in character.
THAT no discovery of a vein or load
of rock in place carrying valuable
mineral deposits has been made upon
any of the above named claims.
THAT development work of the
value of $500 has not been performed
on the Carbonate No. 2, Cricket.
Grandpa, Goat Wallace, Murray or
Utahu lode mining claims"
hearing was held on these charges
in Wallace on January 20, 1922. at
which Mr. Auerbach was represented
by his attorney, Mr.. Towles, who sub
mitted testimony by the following wit
nesses: c. +. o. Merriam and Fred w.
Galloway, mining engineers; H. c.
Adami, assayer; W. H. Herrick, exper-
fenced miner. and Chas. w. Tilden,
prospector. Appearing for the forest
service were F. r. Ingalsbe, W. H. NJ.
Woodward and c. A. McElroy, miner
al examiners. On March IS, 1922, the
register of the United States land Of
fee at Occur d'Alene land Office found
that the charges by the forest service
had not been sustained, concluding his
decision in these words:
Patent Should Be Issued.
IN view of the well known charac-
ter of the surrounding land and of the
testimony that the developed veins of
valuable mineral bearing from the
adjoining claims pass through the
claims in dispute, we think that suf-
fcient showing as to mineral has been
made and also sufficient development
has been done and that the contest
should be dismissed and patent should |
be issued for all of the claims in dis
pute, and we so recommend"
Although no appeal was taken by
the forest service, the commissioner
followed the practice of the depart
ment and treated it as on appeal since
it was a proceeding by the govern
ment.
Not Familiar With Mining Costs.
Taking up the testimony the COM
missioner pointed out that the mineral
examiners for the forest service ex-
AHMED all workings for mineral, took
and estimated the work
lone, and that they admitted that
hey had no particular knowledge of
he mining condition in the Occur
i'Alene district, that they had not
made examination of the surrounding
properties, and that they had no spe-
,ific knowledge of the cost of labor in
he district Consequently for the
work done on the claims protested for
want of sufficient patent expenditure,
he government experts gave extreme
y low figures. Their estimate for the
work. on the other claims were gener-
lily correspondingly low, but here
here had nevertheless been expended
more than $500 on each claim"
Testimony Compared.
The commissioner then takes up the
estimony submitted by both sides and
eals with each of the 13 claims sep
rately and arrives at a conclusion in
he main favorable to the applicant, 1
learly giving great weight to the G
pinions of resident engineers who are c
amiliar with mining conditions. Sum-
ming up, the commissioner of the gen. 1
raj land Office says:
1T Is thus made clear why the gov T
rnment experts were unable to find a
ny mineral indications on most of the
laims, while the witnesses for the de-
ense' testified that they found some T
Indications on almost every claim. The d
ormer were not familiar with mineral n
howings in the Occur d'Alenes and L
heir opinions were formed on what S
hey saw on the individual claims. On c
he other hand the witnesses for the p
efense examined these claims in the Il
ght Of their knowledge of conditions il
n surrounding lands. It can not be 0
Continued on Page 81