CHAPTER VII. PLACER CLAIMS. No. 1. Must both be "held" and "worked." No. 2. No. 3. Annual expenditures not required by United States laws. a. Area of location. b. Must make publication and post notice notwithstanding claim has been held for the period prescribed by the Statute of Limitation. No. 5. Locations made prior to July 9, 1870, upon land not yet surveyed, patented in any shape and to any area. No. 6. No. 7. No. 9. No. 11. No. 12. No. 13. Joint entry. Land treated as unsurveyed until plat of survey filed in local office. b. Diagram and notice required to be posted on each parcel. Construction of section 10, Act of May 10, 1872. Timber on mineral land in limits of grant to the Central Pacific a. Locations prior to July 9, 1870, regulated as to size by local law. c. Five hundred dollars expenditure not required on each location A placer is a surface claim, and when such claim is anterior to the No. 16. Evidence as to relative value of land for town-site or mining purposes inadmissible. No. 17. a. Burden of proof as to character of land. b. Land in Indian Reservation reserved from all disposal. c. Policy of the Government to encourage the development of the mining resources. No. 1. Under the thirteenth section of the act of May 10, 1872, the claim must be both held and worked. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 15, 1875. SIR: I have considered the motion for a rehearing filed by the claimant, in the ex parte case of the Gem lode, Montana Territory, decided by the department, adversely to the claimant, January 22, 1875. The motion alleges two errors in the decision, viz.: 1. The ruling that by local law the width of surface ground for lode claims in said Territory is limited to fifty feet on each side of the center of the lode. 2. The finding that claimant was not entitled to a patent by virtue of compliance with the provisions of the thirteenth sections of the act of July 9, 1870. With reference to the first alleged error, I am satisfied upon a re-examination of the question that the construction given by the former decision to the Territorial act is the correct one, and that the same should be adhered to." * The decision of the department upon the second point mentioned was in substance that the claimant had not furnished satisfactory evidence that he or his grantors had, in the language of the statute, "held and worked" his claim for a period equal to the time prescribed by the Statute of Limitation for mining claims in the Territory of Montana. The argument in support of the motion is to the effect that no work was required in order to hold the claim by either local law or the laws of the United States until January 1, 1875, and that as the applicant had held said claim in accordance with local laws for the period prescribed by the thirteenth section of the act of 1872, he was therefore entitled upon showing that fact to a patent from the United States. Claim must be both held and worked. No This position is, in my opinion, entirely untenable. The language of the thirteenth section is perfectly clear and unambiguous. The claim must be "held and worked," not simply held or simply worked, but held and worked. reference is made to the method of holding or working, or the manner in which the same is to be done, and there can therefore be no presumption that such method or manner is such as is contemplated by local laws, when such laws are inconsistent with the statute.† The provision of the act referred to is a plain require * Reversed by decision of July 24, 1876, in case of Tootle, Hanna et al. See No. 14. Application. + Mining claims on the public lands must be held and worked in accordance with the local mining laws adopted and in force in the mining district where the same are located: Strange v. Ryan, 46 Cal. 33. ment that other evidence to support the claim shall be waived where the premises are shown to have been, in the general and ordinary acceptation of the terms, held and worked for a specified period and no adverse claim has intervened. It is not pretended that this was done in the case under consideration. The motion is therefore overruled, and the papers transmitted herewith to your office for the files of the case. You will notify the claimant of this action. Very respectfully, B. R. COWAN, Acting Secretary. To the Commissioner of the General Land Office. No. 2. Annual expenditures on placer claims are not required by the laws of the United States, but are subject to the operation of the local laws, rules, regulations, and customs, only. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 25, 1874. R. B. PATTON, Esq., Sweetland, California. SIR: In your letter of the thirty-first ultimo, you inquire whether or not the mining acts of Congress require certain annual expenditures upon placer mines to entitle parties to hold the same. In reply, I would state that the first general act of Congress regulating the disposal of mineral lands was that of July 26, 1866, which only applied to veins or lodes of quartz, or other rock, in place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper. The act of July 26, 1866, was amended by the act of July 9, 1870, and provision was made for the disposal of "claims usually called placers," "including all forms of deposit excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place.' Neither of these acts prescribed the amount of work or expenditures which should be made annually upon mining claims to enable parties to hold the same, but left this matter to be determined by the local laws, rules, regulations, and customs. The act of May 10, 1872, repealed certain portions of the mining acts then in force, and, among other things, pre scribed a new mode of procedure for obtaining patents to mining claims. * * * The fifth section of the act last referred to provides that "the miners of each mining district may make rules and regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession. of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: * on each claim located after the passage of this act, and until a patent shall have been issued therefor, not less than one hundred dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year. On all claims located prior to this act, ten dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made each year for each one hundred feet in length along the vein until a patent shall have been issued therefor." The only reference made to the subject of annual expenditures upon mining claims is found in said fifth section, which provides that on each claim located since May 10, 1872, one hundred dollars shall be annually expended, and on all claims located prior to said date, ten dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made each year for each one hundred feet in length along the vein. The tenth section of said act of May 10, 1872, provides that the act of July 9, 1870, "shall be and remain in full force, except as to the proceedings to obtain a patent, which shall be similar to the proceedings prescribed by sections six and seven of this act for obtaining patents to vein or lode claims." Annual expenditures required on vein or lode claims only. The tenth section taken in connection with the fifth section of the act of May 10, 1872, makes it clear to my mind. that it was the intention of Congress to require annual expenditures only upon vein or lode claims, leaving placer claims, as they had been previous to the passage of said act, subject to the operation of the local laws, rules, regulations, and customs. Very respectfully, W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner. No. 3. Letter stating the provisions of the acts of July 9, 1870, and May 10, 1872, in regard to the size of placer locations, and the effect of the local laws thereon. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 19, 1873. A. B. BEAUVAIS, Esq., Columbia, California. SIR: Referring to your communication of the twenty-fifth ultimo, I would state that the mining act of July 9, 1870, declares that "no location of a placer claim hereafter made. shall exceed one hundred and sixty acres," etc. The act of May 10, 1872, provides that no such locations hereafter made "shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant," etc. The mining regulations of the different mining districts remain intact and in full force, with regard to the size of locations, where they do not permit locations in excess of the limits fixed by Congress. Where such regulations permit locations in excess of the maximum fixed by Congress as aforesaid, they are restricted accordingly. In the case presented by you, where the local law provides that placer locations shall not exceed one hundred feet square to an individual, no more than that amount can be located, unless the local mining laws are amended in such a way as to allow claims of a greater size to be located. Very respectfully, etc., W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner. No. 4. 1. Area which may be applied for as a placer claim. 2. An applicant for patent on a placer claim, who has held possession of his claim for a period which satisfies the statute of limitations of his State or Territory, is not excused from publishing and posting notice of his application. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, September 20, 1879. Messrs. SMITH BROS., Peels Marsh, Nevada. GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of the sixteenth ultimo, you are informed that the area which may be applied for as a placer claim is unlimited, provided the separate locations constituting it were of legal quantity, properly made, are all contiguous, making one tract, and the entire title is in ap |