Document: 390 U.S. 599 88 S.Ct. 1327 20 L.Ed.2d 170 UNITED STATES et al., Petitioners,v.Alfred E. COLEMAN al. No. 630. Argued March 28, 1968. Decided April 22, Rehearing Denied May 27, See 391 961, 1834. Frank J. Barry, Tucson, Ariz., for the United States and others; Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney Martz, Robert S. Rifkind, Roger P. Marquis George R. Hyde on brief. Howard A. Twitty, Phoenix, respondents; W. Nilsson, Gray, Edward McCabe Monta Shirley Winston Don H. Sherwood New Jersey Zinc Co. as amicus curiae. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered opinion of Court. 1 In 1956 respondent Coleman applied to Department Interior a patent certain public lands based his entry onto exploration these discovery there variety stone called quartzite, one most common all solid materials. It was, still is, Coleman's contention that quartzite deposits qualify 'valuable mineral deposits' under 30 U.S.C. § 221 make land 'chiefly valuable building stone' 161.2 The Secretary held 22 it must be shown can 'extracted, removed marketed at profit'—the so-called 'marketability test.' Based largely undisputed evidence in record, concluded claimed by did not meet criterion. As alternative claim, were 'common variet(y)' within meaning 611,3 thus they could serve basis valid mining claim laws. denied application, but remained land, forcing Government bring this present action ejectment District Court against lessee, McClennan. respondents filed counterclaim seeking have direct issue them. Court, agreeing with Secretary, rendered summary judgment Government. On appeal Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed, holding specifically test profitable marketability was proper standard determining whether had been made deemed 611. We granted Government's petition certiorari because importance decision utilization lands. 389 970, 476, 19 460. 2 cannot agree believe rulings proper. Secretary's determination profit does no violence statute. Indeed, is an admirable effort identify greater precision objectivity factors relevant deposit 'valuable.' logical complement 'prudent-man test' which has using interpret laws since 1894. Under order deposits,' discovered such character 'a person ordinary prudence would justified further expenditure labor means, reasonable prospect success, developing mine * *.' Castle v. Womble, L.D. 455, 457 (1894). This approved prudent-man formulation interpretation numerous occasions. See, example, Chrisman Miller, 197 313, 322, 25 468, 49 L.Ed. 770; Cameron States, 252 450, 459, 40 410, 64 659; Best Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 334, 335—336, 83 379, 9 350. Congress available people purpose other purposes.4 obvious intent reward encourage minerals are economic sense. Minerals prudent man will extract demand them price higher than costs extraction transportation hardly economically valuable. Thus, profitability important consideration applying test, used here merely recognizes fact. 3 also advantage throwing light claimant's intention, matter inextricably bound together valuableness. For value likelihood operated may well suggest claimant seeks purposes. points out, facts case—the thousands dollars hours spent home 720 acres highly scenic national forest located two from Los Angeles, lack feasible market stone, immense quantities identical found area outside claims—might thought raise substantial question real intention. 4 Finally, we think Appeals' objection ground involves imposition different more onerous claims widespread occurrence rarer generally dealt unwarranted. pointed out above, distinct standards, complementary latter refinement former. While true usually critical factor cases involving nonmetallic occurrence, accounted perfectly natural reason precious metals small supply great demand, sell so high leave little room doubt extracted profit. 5 correct ruling '(i)n view claims, considered variety" fall exclusionary language 1955 Act, 69 Stat. 368, 611, declares '(a) varieties shall (not) Respondents rely earlier 1892 161, makes applicable 'lands chiefly contend Act application since, according respondents, '(s)tone very fact, stone.' reasoning Appeals. But argument completely fails take into account why felt compelled pass its modification legislative history clear (30 611) intended remove types sand, gravel, coverage laws, served patents, place disposition materials Materials 1947, 61 681, 601 seq., provides sale without disposing found. Chairman House Committe Insular Affairs explained follows: 6 'The done gravel really materials, type material contemplated handled precisely where much abuse *' 101 Cong.Rec. 8743. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, Senate Committee Report stated bill to: 7 'Provide pumice, pumicite, cinders lands, abundance, disposed 1947 (61 681), rather law 1872.' S.Rep. 554, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 2. 8 Thus read passed 1955, removing varieties' leaving entirely effective 'some property giving special value' (expressly excluded 611). reasons hold entitled eject respondents' fail. case reversed remanded proceedings carry decision. 10 ordered. 11 Judgment remanded. 12 MARSHALL took part or case. cornerstone federal legislation dealing 10, 1872, 17 91, citizens enter explore domain and, if find obtain title Interior. 'charged seeing (are) recognized, invalid ones eliminated, rights preserved.' 460, 412, 659. 1872 supra, supplemented passage August 4, 1892, 27 348, pertinent part: 'That any authorized provisions relation placer Section July 23, 'A give validity hereafter *. 'Common include some 92, 29, obtained following manner: Any having piece purposes file,

Category: 7