it is extremely improbable that the survey you forward can be defended.* I can not authorize their approval in their present form, and before giving them your approval, you will require such modification as will bring them within the proper form as above indicated. Very respectfully, J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner. No. 2. Two or more locations, in extension, upon the same lode not prohibited by law. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 17, 1873. Messrs. HOYT & BROTHERS, Helena, Montana. GENTLEMEN: Referring to your letter of the thirtieth ultimo, I have to state that the mining act of May 10, 1872, declares that, "a mining claim located after the passage of this act, whether located by one or more persons, may equal but shall not exceed one thousand five hundred feet in length along the vein or lode." But there is no provision of law to prevent parties from locating other claims upon the same lode, outside of the first location made on the lode or vein. If a lode or vein three thousand feet in length is discov *Vein confined to its side lines.-Under the mining laws of the United States, unaided by any supplementary miners' rules, there is no way of locating a quartz vein except by marking out surface lines; and where these lines have been marked they can not be changed so as to take in ground that has been located by others prior to such attempted change. The Golden Fleece lode mining claim was located in 1874, upon a vein supposed to run in the direction of its location, north, 45 degrees west. Afterwards the Leonard Lode, owned by the defendant, was located as a claim running due north and south. As thus located the interference was slight, the Golden Fleece claim cutting off only a few feet of the survey of the Leonard. After a patent had been applied for on the Leonard Lode, the Golden Fleece was resurveyed upon the true course of the lode as developed, and adversed the Leonard Lode as a location covering a large part of its area, including its outcrop and workings. The discoveries were several hundred feet apart. At the time of the original location of the Golden Fleece, the course of the vein was supposed to be at an angle which proved to be nearly a right angle to its real course: Held, that the lines of the original location could not be changed so as to interfere with claims subsequently located. Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable Con. Co., 12 Nev. 329. ered, two locations may be made, each of fifteen hundred feet, thereon. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner. No. 3. Location made on Sunday not invalid, if not prohibited by local law. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 29, 1880. FRANCIS CUNNINGHAM, Esq., Visalia, California. SIR: In reply to your two letters of 12th instant-one having been referred to this office by the Hon. Secretary, to whom it was directed-you are advised that a mining claim would not, under United States laws, be invalid merely because located on Sunday. If your State and local laws do not prohibit locations on the Sabbath, the location would be legal. Very respectfully, J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner. See decision of Secretary of the Interior, July 17, 1879, Dolly Varden case, No. 45-Adverse Claims. No. 4. EFFECT OF LOCAL LAWS. The location of a mining claim in Colorado must comply with the requirements of the state law governing the location of mining claims. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 25, 1880. ALFRED H. HALE, Esq., Ohio, Gunnison Co., Colorado. SIR: I am in receipt of your communication dated July 23, 1880, wherein you inquire whether the act of Congress, approved January 22, 1880, amendatory of the mining act, annuls the Colorado state law in regard to the same matter: That is—“Is a man compelled to sink a ten-foot shaft, or its equivalent, inside of sixty days, to secure his claim from relocation?" The Colorado statute "governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim," is an enactment made in pursuance of the power conferred by section 2324 United States Revenue Statutes, and is in force, except so far as it may conflict with express enactment by Congress. One of the conditions prescribed by the state legislature "governing the location" of a mining claim is, that the locator or discoverer "shall locate his lode by--first, sinking a discovery shaft upon the lode to the depth of at least ten feet from the lowest part of the rim of such shaft at the surface, or deeper, if necessary, to show a well-defined crevice; second, by posting at the point of discovery on the surface a plain sign or notice," etc. Another provision is as follows: "The amount of work done, or improvements made, during each year, shall be that prescribed by the mining laws of the United States." Local law must be complied with. I therefore answer your inquiry in the affirmative; the locator of a mining claim must perform all acts required by the statute, or the local rules and regulations adopted by the miners in the absence of statutory provisions relating to such locations.* I see no reason why the labor or expenditures necessary to comply with the law in making the location should not apply to the expenditures required by law to be made during the first year.† Under the provisions of the act of Congress, approved January 22, 1880, a claim located, for instance, on the first day of July, 1880, and requiring an expenditure of, say fifty dollars, to sink the necessary shaft, etc., it will not be necessary to perform the remaining fifty dollars' worth of work required to complete the prescribed annual expenditure of one hundred dollars, until the 31st day of December, 1881, the year within which such annual expenditures must be completed, beginning to run from the first day of January next succeeding the date of location. Very respectfully, J. A. WILLIAMSON, When the district laws point out directly how mining claims must be located, and how the possession once acquired is to be maintained, that course must be strictly pursued, and a failure to do so might work a forfeiture of the ground. Mallett v. Uncle Sam Mining Company, 1 Nev. 194. + See letter to Hon. N. P. Hill, November 10, 1880: No. 7, Annual Labor. No. 5. Construction of Section 2320 Revised Statutes, as to width of location. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 20, 1873. R. O. OLD, Esq., Georgetown, Colorado Territory. SIR: Referring to your letter of the tenth instant, I have to state that the second section of the mining act of May 10, 1872, declares that "no claim shall extend more than three hundred feet on each side of the middle of the vein, at the surface, nor shall any claim be limited by any mining regulation to less than twenty-five feet on each side of the middle of the vein, at the surface," etc. The uniform construction which has been given this portion of said section by this office, is that no claim located after May 10, 1872, can exceed six hundred feet in width, under any circumstances. Whether a location made after May 10, 1872, can equal six hundred feet in width, depends entirely upon the local regulations, or state or territorial. laws in force in the several mining districts. By the statutes of Colorado, approved February 9, 1866, a mining claim is limited to "twenty-five feet in either direction from the center of the * * lode or vein.” The act of May 10, 1872, simply declares that a mining claim located after the passage of said act, shall not exceed three hundred feet in width on each side of the center of the vein, and that surface right shall not be limited to less than fifty feet in width, unless adverse claims existing on the tenth of May, 1872, render such lateral limitation necessary. Location may extend to six hundred feet in width, subject to local laws or mining regulations, and shall not be less than fifty feet in width. The miners of the district, or the state or territorial legislatures, are authorized by the act to regulate and control the width of a location; providing, however, that the width shall not exceed six hundred feet, nor be limited to less than fifty feet. Where an application is made for a patent for a mine located prior to May 10, 1872, the patent, when issued, conveys to the grantee the right to follow the particular lode named in the patent to the number of feet expressed in said conveyance, although the lode should, in its course, leave the surface ground described in the patent, and enter the land adjoining. The patent not only grants him the right to follow the particular lode named to the number of feet expressed in the patent, along the course thereof, but also grants him the right to follow said lode to any depth. The patent also conveys to the grantee the right to follow all other veins, lodes, or ledges, the tops or apexes of which lie within the exterior boundary lines of his survey, if the same were not adversely claimed on the tenth of May, 1872, only to such an extent, however, along the course thereof, as may be embraced by such exterior boundaries, but to any depth.* Where application for patent for a mill site is made, satisfactory proof must be furnished that the land claimed is not mineral in character. Very respectfully, etc., W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner. No. 6. Secondary evidence of location and possessory title received when the claim is not located in a regularly organized mining district. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., Nov. 12, 1872. D. W. LICHTENTHALER, Esq., Le Grand, Oregon. SIR: * * * * In the event of a mining claim being situate outside of any regularly constituted mining district, affidavit of the fact should be made and secondary evidence of possessory title will be received, which may consist of the affidavit of the claimant, supported by those of any other parties cognizant of the facts relative to the location, occupation, and possession of such claim; and any deeds, certificates of location, or purchase or other evidence, which may be in the defendant's possession and tend to establish his claim. Very respectfully, W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner. A person locating a claim larger than allowed by law, may still hold the extra area, except as against one locating in pursuance of the rules. English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 108. |