West Mountain Mining District, Salt Lake county, Utah Territory, and running seven hundred and fifty feet northeasterly, and seven hundred and fifty feet south-westerly from the Notice Monument and Discovery Shaft, and one hundred feet on each side of the vein and along its course to the extent of this location, with all its variations." Sec. 2324, U. S. Revised Statutes, provides that, "The location must be distinctly marked on the ground, so that the boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining claims, hereafter (May 10, 1872) made, shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of location, and such a description of the claim or claims located, by reference to some natural object or permanent monument, as will identify the claim." It is manifest from the description given in the location notice above recited, that while the general locality of the claim is described, absolute identity of claim could not be known from the data given therein. It is true that affidavits alleging the identity of the survey with the location are submitted; but affidavits directly to the contrary have also been filed; and it is my duty, before issuing patent upon any mine, to be satisfied that the land sought to be patented is covered by the location on which the application for patent is based, and no patent can issue for a claim any part of which is outside its location.* It is also necessary, when any want of certainty in description is found in the papers, that the absolute identity of the claim be established to the satisfaction of this office. You are, therefore, hereby directed to forthwith give notice, by publication for thirty days as specified in instructions. on page twenty-six of the inclosed circular, and also by personal notice to the applicants for patent, for a hearing to determine the aforesaid questions relative to the amount of expenditure on the Tilden lode, and the identity of survey No. 171 with its location. No expenditures made by the Carriboo locators or owners, and none made by any person or persons except under the Tilden location, can be considered. When the location of a mining claim is made both by posting notice nd reference to natural or permanent objects, witnesses are not confined in their testimony to a statement of the contents of the notice, but may also state whether the location included the ground in dispute. Kelly v. Taylor, 23 Cal. 11. You will receive any testimony which may be offered by any parties who present themselves as witnesses; and endeavor by careful inquiry to clearly develop the facts concerning the points in question. The complaint of the Harriet lode claimants, including affidavits on the questions recited, is herewith inclosed. You will return the same with the record of the hearing. Very respectfully, J. M. ARMSTRONG, Acting Commissioner. No. 12. ACT OF 1866. MINERS' RULES OR CUSTOMS. a. May be altered or amended. c. b. Claim must conform to law at date of location. GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., August 25, 1871. E. J. MARSTERS, Esq., Columbia, Cal. SIR: In reply to your communication of the fourteenth inst. I have to state that the acts of Congress limit the right to apply for and receive patents for mining claims to those who have occupied and improved their claims in accordance with the local laws, customs, and rules of miners. In the absence of any State or Territorial enactment regulating the occupancy and possession of mining claims, miners may alter or amend the laws of the district, but this action will not affect claims already located, as a claim must conform to the laws in force at the date of its location. Should the miners deem it advisable to amend their district laws, they may relocate their claims under and conformably to such amended laws, and upon complying with the acts of Congress and the instructions of this office, may enter and receive patents for the same. Very respectfully, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. No. 13. ACT OF 1866. Construction of first and second provisos to fourth section of Act of July 26, 1866. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 27, 1872. Hon. A. A. SARGENT, M. C., House of Representatives. fourth instant, inclosing a letter from Hartson and Burnell, dated at Napa City, Cal., the eleventh instant, I have the honor to state, the construction which this office had placed upon the first and second provisos to the fourth section of the mining act of July 26, 1866, was that the limitation of claims in the aggregate to three thousand feet on a lode, to any person or association, was wholly prospective, and related entirely to claims taken up after the date of said act, leaving the parties who held the possessory right to claims previously located, although in excess of that maximum, at liberty to apply for and receive patents therefor. Patents not issued in excess of three thousand feet, along vein or lode. In the case of the New Idria Mining Company, the acting Secretary of the Interior, concurring in the opinion of the Assistant Attorney-general, failed to coincide with this office in its interpretation of the law upon this point, and I am therefore unable to issue patents conveying more than three thousand feet along the vein or lode, no matter whether the location thereof was made prior or subsequent to the date of the mining act of July 26, 1866. It is understood, unofficially, that it is intended by certain parties in interest, to present a case involving this question before the Hon. Secretary of the Interior for review. The letter of Messrs. Hartson and Burnell is herewith returned. I am, sir, very respectfully, Your obedient servant, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. No. 14. ACT OF 1866. Under Act of July 26, 1866, effect of local law upon the consolidation of two or more locations. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, November, 6, 1869. THOMAS LYTLE, Esq., Treasure City, Nevada. SIR: Referring to the subject of your letter of the twentythird of September last, in which you inquire if ten men can "locate 200 feet each on a ledge, one or two of them buy out all the rest, and then apply and secure a patent for * * all the ground, by showing title by deeds," I reply: The only question for consideration is, whether it would be sanctioned by the mining regulations of Nevada. If a purchase made in the manner you suggest is good under the mining regulations of Nevada, it is good in the General Land Office, provided the one thousand dollars expenditure has been made upon it as required by the mining act.* Very respectfully, etc., Jos. S. WILSON, Commissioner. No. 15. 1. The mining act of May 10, 1872, designed to save claims previously located, with the surface ground to which they were then entitled under previous laws. 2. A claim of three thousand linear feet, with surface ground of fifty on each side the lode, can not, subsequent to the act of May 10, 1872, be relocated for more than one thousand five hundred feet along the lode with additional width of surface ground. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 18, 1879. Register and Receiver, Fair Play, Colorado. GENTLEMEN: I have considered the application for review of the decision, in the case of mineral entry No. 112, Peerless lode. On the twelfth day of October, 1871, Henry Seymour and thirteen other persons located three thousand linear feet of the Peerless lode, with surface ground fifty feet wide on each side of the vein; this being the maximum amount, as to length of lode and width of surface allowed by the laws then in force. The act of May 10, 1872, provides that locations subsequently made, shall be only one thousand five hundred feet in length, with surface ground not to exceed three hundred feet in width on each side of the vein. On the twenty-eighth day of January, 1875, the Colorado Mineral, Mining, and Smelting Company, which had by a chain of conveyances from the original locators acquired the possessory rights to the premises, located one thousand *The word location, as found in the written laws of White Pine mining district, refers to the aggregate of ground claimed as a mine, and not to the interest of a single tenant in common, nor to any specific number of feet or section of the mine. Leet v. John Dare S. M. Co., 6 Nev. 218. five hundred linear feet of the lode, with surface ground one hundred and seventy-five feet wide on each side of the vein. December 28, 1875, said company conveyed the premises to the applicant, who, on March 10, 1876, relocated the three thousand linear feet, with surface ground three hundred feet wide on each side of the vein. On the thirteenth day of December, 1878, the acting commissioner of this office decided that the applicant is not entitled to over one thousand five hundred linear feet of said lode. Applicant asks a review of this decision, for the alleged reason that the same was based on the acts of Congress of July 26, 1866, and of May 10, 1872, without reference to the act of the territorial legislature of Colorado, approved February 13, 1874, section thirteen of which act is claimed. provides that any locator of a mining claim previously made, may enlarge his surface boundaries by filing a certificate of relocation. If the location of January 28, 1875, had relocated the entire three thousand linear feet, with additional surface width, the question might arise whether the legislature of Colorado can and has undertaken to give a mining claim made prior to the act of 1872, a greater width than that permitted previous to that act. Mining claims, whether made before or after the act of 1872, must conform to the provisions of the acts of Congress in force at the time the locations were made, and also to the laws of the State or Territory in which said claims are situated, so far as such local laws are not inconsistent with the acts of Congress. The act of 1872 intended by its provisions to preserve to the owners of mining claims whatever rights they had acquired by locations under former laws, but not to enlarge such claims, also to define the rights which might be acquired by subsequent locations.* Any local laws subsequent to the act of 1872, that attempted to enlarge the claims located prior to that act, beyond what was allowed by the laws in force when the location was made, and at the time of the adoption of the act of 1872, would be inconsistent with the acts of Congress, and would therefore be nugatory. * Eureka v. Richmond, 4 Sawyer, 302. |