« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Act of Aug. 4, 1892, ch. 375, 47.
LANDS AND FOREST RESERVES), 47.
Forest RESERVES), 47.
Entry of Petroleum or Other Mineral Oil Lands under Plarer:
claims Laws, 47.
Entry of Saline Lands under Placer-claims Laws, 48.
2. (Advertisements. See Public LANDS), 49.
2335. Verification of Affidavits, etc., 49.
See WATERS), 53.
Accrued Water Rights. See WATERS), 53. 2341. Mineral Lands in Which No Valuable Mines Are Discovered
Open to Homesteads, 53.
to Provide. See Public LANDS), 53.
2345 Mineral Lands in Certain States Excepted, 54.
Minéral Land's in Missouri and Kansas Disposed of as Agri
cultural Lands, 54. Act of March 3, 1883, ch. 118, 54:
Mineral Lands in Alabama Disposed of as Agricultural Lands, 54.
2347. Entry of Coal Lands, 55.
Days, etc., 56.
2352. Rights Reserved, 57.
Coal Land Laws Extended to Alaska, 57.
Act of March 3, 1891, ch. 564, 57.
2. Qualifications of Inspector, 58.
Shot Firing, 58.
Sec. 13. Men in Charge of Hoisting Apparatus, 6o.
19. Territorial Statute to Supersede This Law, 61. III. California Débris Commission and Regulation of Hydraulic Mining,
2. Organization - Compensation - Rules of Procedure, 62.
Processes Not Affected, 63. 11. Foint Petition by Mining Claim Owners Requiring a Common
Dumping Ground, 63. 12. Publication of Petition - Examination - Hearings, 63. 13. Decision — Order - Expenses, 64. 14. Submission of Plans and Work Thereunder — Permission to Com.
mence Mining, 64. 15. Conditions as to Commencing Operations, 64. 10. Allotment of Expenses for Common Dumping Ground Among
Mine Owners, 64. 17. Limit of Débris Washed Away, 65. 18. Commission May Reduce or Revoke Authority, 63. 19. Penalty for Violating Conditions, 65. 20. Examination of Mines Report, 66. 21. Use of Public Lands and Material — Withdrawal from Sale and
Entry, 66. 22. Wilful Injury to Works - Violations Injuring Navigation
Penalty, 66. 23. Tax on Gross Proceeds of Hydraulic Mines — “ Débris Fund"
Created - Advances from Mine Owners, 66.
Special Appropriations or Débris Fund, 67.
Sec. 1. Payments for Work, How to Be Made, 68.
Sec. 1. Mileage in Lieu of Traveling Expenses, 69.
CROSS-REFERENCES. Mineral Lands in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oklahoma Territory, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming, see PUBLIC LANDS; in the
Philippines, see PHILIPPINE ÍSLANDS. Mineral Lands in Abandoned Military Reservations, see PUBLIC LANDS. Torun Site Entries on Mineral Lands, see PUBLIC LANDS. Minerals in Forest Reserves, see TIMBER LANDS AND FOREST RE SERVES
Removal of Timber from Public Lands for Mining Purposes, see TIMBER
LANDS AND FOREST RESERVES.
[I. MINERAL LANDS AND MINING RESOURCES
Sec. 2318. [Mineral lands reserved.] In all cases lands valuable for minerals shall be reserved from sale, except as otherwise expressly directed by law. [R. S.]
Act of July 4, 1866, ch. 166, 14 Stat. L. width on each side of it, subject to further 86.
limitations under acts of the state legisSections 2318-2352 constitute chapter 6 latures, and the mining rules of the district. (entitled • Mineral Lands and Mining Re- Reynolds v. Iron Silver Min. Co., (1886) 116 sources ”) of title 32 (entitled “The Public U. S. 693. Lands”) of the Revised Statutes.
It is only valuable mineral lands and deGenerally. – After Dec. 1, 1873, title to posits that are reserved from sale. A townlands known at the time to be valuable for ship map showing prima facie that there was their minerals, could only have been acquired upon the section
copper, gold, and silver under provisions specially authorizing their bearing quartz,' does not tend to show sale, as found in this chapter, except in the whether it was there in quantity or quality states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minne- sufficient to make the land valuable for minsota, and after May 5, 1876, in the states of ing purposes. Merrill v. Dixon, (1880) 15 Missouri and Kansas. By the Act of Con- Nev. 406. gress of this latter date,“ deposits of coal, Whether valuable for minerals question of iron, lead, or other mineral,” in Missouri fact. — The question whether land is mining and Kansas were excluded from the operation land, or valuable for minerals, is one of fact, of the Act of May 10, 1872, that is, from such which is the peculiar province of the land deprovisions of that Act as were re-enacted in partment of the United States to determine the Revised Statutes. In those portions of before the patent is issued. The issuance of the Revised Statutes which relate to pre-emp- such patent is conclusive in the absence of tion and to homestead entries the clauses fraud, mistake, or imposition. Standard from the original acts excepting mineral Quicksilver Co. v. Habishaw, (1901) 132 Cal. lands are retained. Secs. 2258, 2302. Deffe- 115. back v. Hawke, (1885) 115 U. S. 402. See Reserved for military purposes. - Mineral also Davis v. Weibbold, (1891) 139 U. S. lands belonging to the public domain, which 516.
are reserved from sale under this section, may “ This must be taken, in view of the fact be reserved for military or other public pur. that prior to the Act of July 4, 1866, no law poses by the President. (1881) 17 Op. Atty.authorized the sale or disposal of any mineral Gen. 230. lands belonging to the United States, and the Fraudulent purchase as agricultural land. further fact that subsequent laws incorpor- - U. S. v. Culver, (1892) 52 Fed. Rep. 81, ated in the Revised Statutes provide expressly was a suit brought for the purpose of prohow title to such lands may be acquired, as curing the cancellation of two patents issued limiting the power and authority of the land by the government to the defendants to cerdepartment in disposing of the public lands tain lands named in the complaint. The valuable for minerals to some method and lands were purchased under a presidential under such conditions as may be specifically proclamation, offering them, together with a pointed out by some Act of Congress.” Kan- large quantity of other lands, for sale, and sas City Min., etc., Co. v. Clay, (Ariz. 1892) were purchased at private sale. They were 29 Pac. Rep. 9.
bought by private cash entry as agricultural Sections 2318 to 2328 relate mainly, if not lands, though the purchaser knew their min. exclusively, to mineral lodes or veins, and, eral character. It was held that such a puramong other things, they fix the amount or chase vitiated the sale because of the fraud quantity of land which may be acquired under perpetrated upon the officers of the governany one claim, the maximum of which is
ment. 1,500 feet along its length and 300 feet in
Sec. 2319. [Mineral lands open to purchase by citizens.] All valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining-districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. [R. S.]
Act of May 10, 1872, ch. 152, 17 Stat. L. nonmineralized deposit. Wheeler v. Smith, 91.
(1893) 5 Wash. 704. But see Sullivan v. Mineral lands excepted. See R. S. sec. Schultz, (1899) 22 Mont. 541. 2345, and statutes following such section, Granite quarries. — Lands valuable solely infra, this title.
or chiefly for granite quarries are mineral Title to mineral lands cannot be acquired lands. “ The rulings of the land department, by occupancy unless for the purpose of min- to which we are to look for the conteinpoing or extracting minerals. Burns v. Clark, raneous construction of these statutes, have (1901) 133 Cal. 634.
been subject to very little fluctuation, and alRights of property. --- “ Such right as the most uniformly, particularly of late years, mining laws allow and as Congress concedes have lent strong support to the theory of the to develop and work the mines, is property in patentee, that the words ‘valuable mineral the miner, and property of great value. deposits’ should be construed as including
Those claims are the subject of bar- all lands chiefly valuable for other than agrigain and sale, and constitute very largely the cultural purposes, and particularly as includ. wealth of the Pacific coast states. They are ing non-metallic substances, among which are property in the fullest sense of the word, and held to be alum, asphaltum, borax, guano, their ownership, transfer, and use are gov- diamonds, gypsum, resin, marble, mica, slate, erned by a well-defined code or codes of law, amber, petroleum, limestone, building stone, and are recognized by the states and the fed- and coal. The cases are far too numerous for eral government. This claim may be sold, citation, and there is practically no conflict transferred, mortgaged, and inherited, with- in them.” Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Soderout infringing the title of the United States.” berg, (1903) 188 U. S. 534. Forbes v. Gracey, (1876) 94 U. S. 766. See Diamonds are “ valuable mineral deposits.” also Gorman Min. Co. 1. Alexander, (1892) (1862) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 115. 2 S. Dak. 557; Mt. Rosa Min., etc., Co. v. Exception as to lands withdrawn from sale. Palmer, (1899) 26 Colo. 56.
“Public lands belonging to the United The valuable mineral deposits mentioned States, for whose sale or disposition Congress in the statute are declared to be open to has made provision by its general laws, are purchase, and are distinguished from the land to be regarded as legally open for entry and in which they are found. Waterloo Min. Co. sale under such laws, unless some particular 1. Doe, (C. C. A. 1897) 82 Fed. Rep. 45. But lands have been withdrawn from sale by Consee St. Louis, Min., etc., Co. v. Montana Min. gressional authority or by an executive withCo., (C. C. A. 1902) 113 Fed. Rep. 900. drawal under such authority, either expressed
Stone. — Under this statute the public or implied.” Lockhart v. Johnson, (1901) lands are free and open to exploration and 181 U. S. 520. occupation by the citizen for his own profit. A private corporation formed under the This applies to all land containing valuable laws of a state, whose members are citizens deposits, including building stone. The right of the United States, may locate a mining thus granted necessarily carries with it the claim on the public lands of the United license to take what may be found in the States. McKinley v. Wheeler, (1889) 130 U. course of exploration and apply it to the dis- S. 635. See also U. S. v. Trinidad Coal, etc., coverer's own use, or option is left to him to Co., (1890) 137 U, S. 168. acquire the exclusive right to the land con- A minor may become a locator of mineral taining deposits; but if he does not choose to lands under this statute. No requirement do so, he may still avail himself of the de- that the citizen shall be of any particular age posit exclusively or in common with others, is expressed. Thompson v. Spray, (1887) 72 unless someone else acquires the exclusive Cal. 531. right from the government. In getting stone Rights of aliens. — The location by an upon the public domain, the person is not a alien and all the rights following from such trespasser; by taking it and bestowing his location are voidable, not void, and are free labor upon it, or causing labor to be bestowed from attack by any one except the governupon it by an employee, he becomes the owner ment. Manuel v. Wulff, (1894) 152 U. S. of it in fact against every person. See also 505. See also McKinley Creek Min. Co. v. the Act of Aug. 4, 1892, 27 Stat. L. 348. Alaska United Min. Co., (1902) 183 U. S. Sullivan v. Schultz, (1899) 22 Mont. 541. 563; Billings v. Aspen Min., etc., Co., (C. C.
Entries of land containing valuable de- A, 1892) 51 Fed. Rep. 338; Ferguson v. Neposits of building stone or limestone are per- ville, (1882) 61 Cal. 356; Gorman Min. Co. mitted as “placer claims” under this section V. Alexander, (1892) 2 S. Dak. 557, as to an and section 2329, R. S., and one who had filed alien grantee of locator. But see Wood v. a coal declaratory statement on certain land Aspen Min., etc., Co., (1888) 36 Fed. Rep. may extract therefrom either stone or coal, 25; Altoona Quicksilver Min. Co. v. Integral if found therein, and become the owner of Quicksilver Min. Co., (1896) 114 Cal. 100; either. Johnston v. Harrington, (1892) 5 Tibbitts v. Ah Tong, (1883) 4 Mont. 536. Wash. 78.
See Territory v. Lee, (1874) 2 Mont. 124, Limestone. — The mining laws were in- as to invalidity of a territorial statute deny. tended to embrace only deposits of ore, and ing right of aliens to acquire mining lands. the term “mineral” excludes the idea of any “When application is made for the issu
ance of evidence of title to mining property, fore judgment removed the infirmity. See it is necessary to show that the applicant is also Croesus Min., etc., Co. v. Colorado Land, a citizen of the United States, or has declared etc., Co., (1884) 19 Fed. Rep. 78. his intention to become such, before a convey- Right to purchase. Under the provisions ance of title can be properly issued; and, of a state constitution, that “foreigners who therefore, as was held by the Supreme Court are, or who may hereafter become, bona fide in the case just cited [O'Reilly v. Campbell, residents of this state, shall enjoy the same (1886) 116 U. S. 418], if a party is seeking rights in respect to the possession, enjoy. to procure the title to mining property from ment, and inheritance of property as native. the United States, if taken at the proper born citizens," a bona fide resident of the time, the objection of alienage would prevent state is capable of taking by purchase the inthe acquirement of title, and such objection terest of one having the right of possession may be made by any one adversely interested. under section 2322, R. S. Ferguson v. Ne. In such cases the sovereign is a party in fact ville, (1882) 61 Cal. 356. to the proceeding, which is a direct one, for Right to inherit. — The question of the the procurement of title, and the objection of right of an alien to inherit a mining claim alienage, no matter by whom suggested, is located upon government land is, as against based solely upon the right of the government every person but the United States, deterto interpose the fact of alienage as a bar to mined by the laws of the state in which the procuring or holding an interest in realty. mine is located. Lohmann v. Helmer, (1900) If, however, the grant of title, or the equiva- 104 Fed. Rep. 178. See also Billings v. Aslent, is made to an alien, it cannot be at- pen Min., etc., Co., (C. C. A. 1892) 51 Fed. tacked by any third party." Billings v.
Rep. 338. Aspen Min., etc., Co., (C. C. A. 1892) 52 Fed. Location of mining claim through an agent. Rep. 251.
“Long prior to the Mineral Land Act of * In order to acquire a right of location 1872, it had been held by the courts of Caliand purchase under this act, a party seeking fornia that a valid location of a mining claim to acquire such right must either be a citizen could be initiated through an agent. So of the United States, or inust have declared at that time it was well understood on this his intention to become such. If, therefore, coast that the law authorized a location by Smith, or any other locator under whom an agent; or, in other words, that a valid plaintiff claims, was not a citizen, or had not location could be made without the locator declared his intention to become such at the participating in person. The law, as intertime of making his location, he acquired no preted by the courts, had been acted upon in right, under the act, by virtue of such loca- all this mining region until it had, in a certion." North Noonday Min. Co. v. Orient lain sense, become a rule of property. Con. Min. Co., (1880) 1 Fed. Rep. 526.
gress had full knowledge of the local laws, In Anthony v. Jillson, (1890) 83 Cal. 298, and, had they intended to change or disit was held that one who had not declared asfirm this rule, it certainly would have been his intention to become a citizen at the time done by express provision. As there is no of posting his notice of location was not en- such provision, it is a fair presumption aristitled to a patent to placer mining ground. ing from section 2319, supru, that it was the The declaration of intention to become a citi- intention to affirm and continue in force this zen the day after posting such notice was too as well as all local laws and customs, as conlate.
strued by the courts, not in conflict with the If a citizen and an alien jointly locate a laws of the United States.” Schultz v. claim, not exceeding the amount of ground Keeler, (1887) 2 Idaho 333. See also McCulallowed to one locator, such location is valid. loch v. Murphy, (1903) 125 Fed. Rep. 147; Strickley v. Hill, (1900) 22 Utah 266.
Dunlap v. Pattison, (1895) 4 Idaho 473; Soldier honorably discharged. — An alien Schultz v. Keeler, (1889) 2 Idaho 568; Murwho is honorably discharged after serving an ley v. Ennis, (1874) 2 Colo. 300; Moore v. enlistment in the United States army, occu- Hamerstag, (1895) 109 Cal. 122. pies the status of one who has declared his Local customs or rules of miners. intention to become a citizen under section given case the right of possession may not 2166, R. S. The fact that a locator of min- involve any question under the Constitution eral lands was honorably discharged from the or laws of the United States, but simply a dearmy has a strong bearing tending to show termination of local rules and customs, or a declaration of intention to become a citi- state statutes, or even only a mere matter of zen, as well as a strong circumstance tending fact. Shoshone Min. Co. v. Rutter, (1900) to show naturalization, and in connection 177 U. S. 508. with other facts and circumstances may be “ The land department of the government, sufficient to establish the fact itself. Strick- and this court also, have always acted upon ley v. Hill, (1900) 22 Utah 257.
the rule that all mineral locations were to be Naturalization before judgment. — Manuel governed by the local rules and customs in v. Wulff, (1894) 152 U. S. 505, was a contest force at the time of location, when such locabetween two claimants of a mining claim, to tion was made prior to the passage of any determine the right to proceed in the United mineral law by Congress.” Glacier Mountain States land office for a patent, and proceed- Silver Min. Co. v. Willis, (1888) 127 U. S. ings were commenced in accordance with sec- 471. tion 2326, R. S. The applicant at the time Vot conflict with statutes. Rules and cusof making application for the patent was an toms of miners, reasonable in themselves, and alien, but it was held that naturalization be- not in conflict with any higher law, have long
- In a