CHAPTER X.

LOCAL MINING RULES AND REGULATIONS.

p. 280. Since the statutes of most of the public land states now cover the subjects previously regulated by miners' rules, these rules have been largely superseded by the statutes. the subject has therefore become relatively unimportant.

By act of Congress of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 321, §§ 15 and 26), miners in any organized mining district in Alaska may make rules and regulations governing the recording of notices of location, water rights, flumes, ditches, mill sites and affidavits of labor; and the location of claims is made subject to rules theretofore made as well as to those thereafter made. Nevertheless, it seems that not only have the miners of Alaska failed for the most part to avail themselves of this permission, but the early codes of district regulation have fallen into disuse. (See "Placer Mining Law in Alaska" by Thomas R. Shepard in 7 Yale L. J. 533.)

United States.

Meydenbauer v. Stevens, 78 Fed. 787 (1897). D. C. D. Alaska. Local rules and regulations of miners, although recognized by the mineral laws of the United States, are not subjects of judicial notice.

Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 119, 49 Law. Ed. 409 (1905). See this case on page 285.

Alaska.

Butler v. Good Enough Min. Co., 1 Alaska, 246 (1901). A rule adopted by a mining district prior to June 6, 1900, providing that notices of loca tion must be filed for record within 30 days from the date of location, is in conflict with $15 of the Political Code of Alaska (Act June 6, 1900, c. 786, 31 Stat. 327), which allows 90 days from the date of the discovery of the claim in which to file notices of location for record, and is therefore repealed by it.

Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska, 286 (1901). A rule that placer claims shall measure 1,320 feet by 660 feet will not be enforced by the courts. It is unreasonable and conflicts with the provisions of the act of congress.

A

miner may locate 20 acres, or less, if he desires, of placer mining ground in any form he chooses, excluding known nonmineral land; no miners' rule, regulation, or custom can limit him in the area or form of his claim, nor in its width or length. This case was affirmed in McIntosh v. Price, 121 Fed. 716, in which it was found unnecessary to consider the above point. See page 328, above.

Arkansas.

Woody v. Bernard, 69 Ark. 579, 65 S. W. 100 (1901). A local regulation which provides that twenty days' work shall be deemed to be worth $100, and therefore a compliance with Rev. St. 2324, is invalid. The labor must actually be of the value of $100 and not merely be counted as such by an arbitrary rate established by a local miners' meeting.

California.

Argonaut Min. Co. v. Kennedy Min. & Mill. Co., 131 Cal. 15, 63 Pac. 148, 82 Am. St. Rep. 317 (1900). "We have many graphic accounts of the rush of gold hunters to California in 1849. The river banks and gulches were suddenly crowded with eager and earnest men anxious to dig for gold. There was no law by which any one could secure to himself any portion of the rich placers. In the absence of regulation, the strongest or most unscrupulous would get the lion's share. The miners, of necessity, made and enforced their own laws. Some regulations as to mining claims sprung into existence naturally, in fact necessarily: 1. So far as possible, each person was given a specified portion of the ground, which he could mine. 2. The allotment to each was so limited that there could be no monopoly. So far as possible, all should have an equal chance. The right of the first possessor was preferred, but no matter was considered more important than the limitation upon the extent of the claims, and 3. As a corollary from these two cardinal rules, the third follows: That each claimant shall mark plainly upon the surface of the earth the boundaries of his claim, that others may locate claims without interfering with him. These essential rules have been the basis of most of the rules and regulations of miners, and have been recognized in every mining district on the Pacific Coast, and in all attempts by legislation, territorial, state or national, to regulate mining locations. Indeed it may be said that the purpose of all these laws and regulations is to secure these ends."

Wright v. Killian, 132 Cal. 56, 64 Pac. 98 (1901). See this case on page 339.

Colorado.

Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 362, 65 Pac. 59, 89 Am. St. Rep. 207 (1901). A district rule which provides for the location of mill sites without regard to the character of the land on which they are located is void, being inconsistent with Rev. St. 2337, confining mill sites to nonmineral land.

2B & A23

Idaho.

Riborado v. Quang Lang Min. Co., 2 Idaho, 131, 6 Pac. 125 (1885). A regulation, once established, is presumed still to exist and be in force until the contrary is proved.

Montana.

Penn v. Oldhauber, 24 Mont. 287, 61 Pac. 649 (1900). A custom in a mining district that 20 days' work performed upon a claim satisfied the requirements of Rev. St. 2324, as to annual work, conflicts with that section and is therefore invalid and void.

LAND OFFICE DECISIONS.

A protestant who has failed to file an adverse claim will not be heard to allege failure to comply with location regulations. These are material only where there is an effort to establish a superior right. Hughes v. Ochsner, 27 L. D. 396 (1898).

Harkrader v. Carroll, 76 Fed. 474 (1896). D. C. D. Alaska. "Abandon ment is a matter of intention and whenever the intention and an actual surrender of the claim are united, the abandonment is complete and operates instanter to restore the title to the United States. Where a miner gives up his claim, and goes away from it without any intention of holding or repossessing it, and regardless of what may become of it, or who may appropriate it, an abandonment takes place, and the property reverts to its original status as a part of the unoccupied public domain. It is then open to location by the first comer, and after others have acquired rights therein, no sale by the former locator, made subsequently to his abandonment, will convey any right or title to his grantee, or in any way affect intervening rights." "While lapse of time is not an essential element of abandonment, it may be a strong circumstance, in connection with others, to prove the intention to abandon."

A locator, becoming sick, left his claim and the territory and “gave up all hopes of returning." He never returned to the claim and never caused the assessment work to be done. He was held to have abandoned it.

Shoshone Min. Co. v. Rutter, 31 C. C. A. 223. 87 Fed. 801 (1898). 9th Circ. Evidence that original locators, with the intention of changing their boundaries and giving a new name to their lode, relocated their claim, in'cluding therein more ground, does not show an abandonment. "The locators had the right to do this, as long as they did not interfere with the rights of other parties. The fact that the Edith was mentioned in the conveyance does not prove that the parties relied upon the title under that name. A conveyance of the ground by metes and bounds, by any name of the claim, would be valid and effective. The name is generally used to designate or identify the claim, but it may be designated or identified by the use of one or more than one, name, if it is known or called by different names.

There

is no statute, law, rule, or regulation which prevents locators of mining claims from relocating their own claim, and including additional vacant ground, unclaimed by other parties, under a different name, and convey ing it by the designation of the last name.”

Badger Gold Min. & Mill. Co. v. Stockton Gold & Copper Min. Co., 139 Fed. 838 (1905). C. C. D. Or. The abandonment of a mining claim by one of two joint owners does not vest any right or title to his interest in his Co-owner. Abandonment can only be taken advantage of by relocation. (Contra, Worthen v. Sidway, 72 Ark. 215, 79 S. W. 777, below.)

Farrell v. Lockhart, 210 U. S. 142, 52 Law. Ed. 994 (1908). Failure to perform any annual work may raise an inference of abandonment, even before the expiration of the period for the performance of that work. See this case on page 369, below.

Crary v. Dye, 208 U. S. 515, 52 Law. Ed. 595 (1908), affirming Dye v. Crary, 13 N. M. 439, 85 Pac. 1038 (1906). The owner of a mining claim which was sold under a void attachment, which he assumed or be lieved to be valid, declared to several persons that his interest in the property had gone to pay a debt and that he considered it well sold. It is held that his acts and declarations did not constitute an abandonment of the claim, so that he could not reassert his title as against the purchaser at the sale or his vendee.

Alaska.

Noland v. Coon, 1 Alaska, 36 (1890). The evidence of an abandonment must be clear, and the burden of proving it is on the party alleging it; but when proved it defeats the prior possession and the rights abandoned be come thereby publici juris; the rights of subsequent possession are new and independent. There must be an intent to abandon, and that intent may be manifested by the declarations and acts of the parties charged with it.

Loeser v. Gardiner, 1 Alaska, 641 (1902). Abandonment is largely a matter of intert. An abandonment, like a forfeiture, can only be sustained by clear and convincing evidence. Where one does no act indicating abandonment, but on the contrary causes his assessment work to be done and sells a half interest in the claim to another person, there is no abandonment.

Arizona.

Kinney v. Fleming, 6 Ariz. 263, 56 Pac. 723 (1899). Abandonment rests in intention as well as in acts accompanying the intention. Where one locates a claim on behalf of himself and three other persons, but subse quently decides that it is worthless and tears down the location notice. and goes away and leaves the territory with the intention of having nothing further to do with the claim, it is an abandonment. The land covered by the claim is thereupon immediately open to location by others, who are not required to wait until the claim becomes forfeited by reason of a non