Year: 1871

lale u cndnSe the surveyor return from
agricultural to mineral" yet his re-
turn did not fix the character of the land
was merely his opinion and would have
nothing to do with determining the actual
character of the land But with this in
formation came the assurance that the
aforesaid mineral afidavits were accepted,
that they were to be filed at Marysville,
and were regarded at the Washington Of
fee as positive evidence as to the incor-
rectness of Magee's return, and as to the
actual mineral character of the land
Practically, this was all the miners meet
ing and mineral af6davits were designed
to accomplish, and although glad of the
effect of the "protest," ], for one, believe
Col Magee acted strictly under his in
structions, but am pleased to know that
the men who instructed him are supersed-
ed by better posted and more careful Off
cials.


Within the last few weeks, have learn
ed that the mineral afidavits alluded to,
or certified copies, have been transferred
to the Shasta Office from Marysville, and
that they are regarded with the impor-
tance they deserve by the Register and
Receiver of the Shasta Land office.


But, Mr.. Editor, what disgusts me,
surprise me most, and makes me almost
doubt my own identity, is the fact, as I
have learned within the last few days, that
few men who signed that "protest," and
even few who have fled mineral afi-
davits on their own and neighbors claims,
are no'o applying to pre-en,pt 40 or l6O
acre tracts cfthe land as agricultural! Of
course, in order to apply to pre-empt, and
successfully prove up pre- emption claim,
the applicant and his witnesses must swear
that the land sought to be entered is agri-
cultural and is more valuable for farming
than mining, as re-emption claims cannot
be laid on mineral land.


Now, whenever any one who has filed
mineral af6davits applies at the land office
to enter or prove up a pre-emption or home
stead claim, the first thing that will stare
him in the face will be his solemn oath as
to the mineral character of the land. That
oath is matter of record and cannot be
expunged, changed or qualified In order
to proceed, another oath directly opposite
and contradictory would have to be taken
and also become matter of record In
case the second oath is taken, what posi-
tion would the party occupy before his fel-
low-men Would he not perjure himself? !?
Would not evidence Of the fact be on re-
cord, open to the world, and at any time
subject to Grand Jury investigation ?-and
perjury is Penitentiary offense as We all
know.


Even land situated in the mining region,
on which no mineral afidavits may have
been fled, andsas which gold in paying
quantities Cannot be entered as
agriculturaL kout perjury; but in case of
attempt to enter mineral land as agricul-
tural by parties Who have previously filed
mineral afidavits on the same, must not
double perjury be committed


Mr.. Editor, it is and old and true mott %
that "honesty is the best policy" and it
applies to land matters as we'll as anything
else, and if / am not mistaken, certain
few whose names might mention, will
live to wish that they had acted honestly
and swore truthfully. To all honest men,
who desire to do right, enjoy clear con-
sciences, and avoid trouble, the true course
to obtain land is plain, to wit: If you
actually desire to enter land for the pur-
pose of farming it, and do not believe it
will pay more for mining, and have no in
tention of mining it-then apply as an ag-
ricultural claimant. IF you desire to enter
land which you know contains gold, which
you value chiefly for its minerals, which
you really intend to mine or perhaps sell
for mining purposes-then apply for a
mineral patent. Don't let the pitiful diff
ference between the price of agricultural
and mineral land influence you in matter
where the sanctity of your oath is concern
ed


We are all aware that in the Townships
surveyed last year, the land is mineral,
and when water can be got on it, will pay
more to mine than farm, with the excep-
tion of few garden spots. The Mining
Law affords the owners of these improved
garden spots ample protection, for it per.
mits them to enter their land at the same
rate the miner pays Government for his
and--s250 per acre, which is cheap
enough, if it is worth anything. In con-
clusion will say that am glad to know
that the miners, with but very few excep-
tons, stand by the protest and resolutions
of the late miners meeting, and stand up
for what they know is true--that the land
-, -x..x:.~- :. -..o,t;al1x, op1 ,,pdoubfodlv