OCR Text |
Show M1SIXG LAW. j An Important LHctsiou by Com- missiontjr Williamson. Tbe following decioioa waa made qq September 26tb by tbe coniLuia-Bioner coniLuia-Bioner of the land office, on tbe application ap-plication for patent of Peter VanClief ; and otbera, upon the American bill qmulz mine, Califurnia. It will be seen lbt.t tbe camruiarioner bultld ft tliilereut opinion n gtrdint; uB-jetJt- 1 int;ut work od niiuea tolhentie Unit 1 iti tieucmlly bckl in tho west : I SYLLilJtJS, 1. A miuo catiuut be nl jcited lifter enlry. 2. Aauual cxpeudilurea not ru qtpred by law after entry and before it-stie ol patent. Two qoebtiouB lor decision : , 1st. In a mineral claim subject to relnc ttion after its enlry ? 2d. Dois fnilurn to comply wilb Bection 2324 U. iS. llevieed Staluteo, us labor and im- provemeuta between date of entry and delivery of a patent ork a forfeiture of all rights acquired by entry, when auch failure ia made known lo tbe commission 1 A miniog claim is not subject to relocation after entry. Carrol s SaQbrd, 3 Howard, (U. 8. Sun. Ot. Hep.) 441, Witherspoon vs Duncan, 4 Wallace, do 210. SUrk vs 8tarr, 6 Wallace, do 402, Hutchings vs Law, 15 Wallace, do 77. Section 2324 Revioed Statutes, applies to min ing ciaiLUH uuiy lur a pbriuu priur iu entry. The section deals only with i, tbe possessory title, and it does not intertere with a patent certificate. c Tbe provisions aubaequent to section 2324 preclude even the assertion of an adverse claim of prior inception after entry ;much less can a new claim be initiated. . e Tbe commissioner is of tho opinion that a failure to perioral labor or make t improvements required by section 2324 between date of entry and de.- livery of patent does not work a ' forefeiture of all rights acquired by entry, and demand its cancellation. Tbe mining laws may be divided inio two parts. 1st. That granting, on certain conditions, ;the right of use and possession. 2d, That providing provid-ing for purchase and sale of the fee. Heotion 2324 provides for tbe right ' of possession without -purchase. The whole scope of tbe Bection is that a 1 - mere possessory title is subject to be defeated by a failure to make the specified annual appropriation and of the location of another party. The mining laws do not require a purchase of amine from the United StateB. They give the right of exploration ex-ploration and ocupationjthe perpetuity of possession without purchase depends de-pends on a compliance of certain conditions, and tbe failure of a qualified party to relocate during a period of legal abandonment. Tbe mere failure to make the annual im-, im-, provements dots not conclude a possessory right. A mere resumption of work by a party in default, or by his legal representatives, prior to relocation re-location makes bis possession good, Tbe necessity for annual expenditures expendi-tures continues not for a period equal to tbat prescribed by the statute of limitations of tbe state in whioh tbe mine is situated, but until tbe owner of the poeaessiou shall become tbe ' owner of tbe property, tbat ia until entry, huu i-lips is ine time wdico congress sought to mark by the words 1 of limitation employed. I By the doctrine laid down in Hutch-1 jngs vs Law, at date of entry the owner of the possession becomes the absolute equitable owner. The delay in a delivery of his patent does not abridge bis rights or increase his duties. Congress intended tbat tbe expression Uied "until a patent has been issued therefor," was only to mark the date of a cbange of ownership, wbicb happens at entry. Oiberwiee congruas would have declared jn terms tbat anuunl expenditures could not be suspended sus-pended upon entry and issue of a patent certificate, but must be continued con-tinued until actual delivery of patent itself. Tbe language used was simply to emphasize the legislative intent, tbat said expenditures could be dispensed dis-pensed with for no reason, even when the possession mibt otherwise be protected pro-tected by me state statue of limitation, or by local rule or custom, except that of change of ownership, of which tbe pathnt certificate ts legal evidence until delivery of patent itself at tbe convenience of tbe government. This conclusion is supported by fection 2,325 which declares tbe conditions con-ditions upon which property cau be purchased aud a patent obtained therefor. Tbe proof aa to expenditures expendi-tures (tbe $500 t; be certified by U. 3. surveyor general, ) does not in terms or constructively refer to annual improvements, which are tne incident of a possessory title. Tilub is not material. The clause of annual expenditures in section 2,325 refern clearly to those conditions only wbicb are essential to tbe right of purchase. A man may expend $100,000 on a mine and then do no more for three yearB, but before a relocation be resumes work and applies for a patent, The mine cannot be re located because he has resumed work; he has made the required $500 expenditures; the mine cannot b relocated after entry; no proof of having kept up the annual expenditures expendi-tures was a condition ol entry. Tbe "termii" of the chapter relutiog to annual expenditures refer eolely to tbe posaesaory title, which has legally been merged into tbe right of property, aud congress itself, said tbe supreme court in HutchingB a. Law, has no power to dispoepess bim. Vested rights cannot be annihilated on doubtful constructions of law, anil whatever power congress may bare bad lo make annual expenditures prior to entry a condition of entry, or annual expenditures after entry a condition of patent, congress did not do so. The "terms" ot the chapter with which compliance must be shown in order to support an entry re such only an relate to the condi-lions condi-lions of purchase, and not those which were merely conditions of poffaession without purchase. The following points in regard to the enme case were received by telegraph tele-graph luBt night: Eds. Washington, )7. The commis i-iiner of the general land office, in the course of a decision refuBing tne application of certain parties to b al owed to relocate tbe American Hill Quartz mine, unnouncea taw following new and important rulinge which is intended to prevent the success ol large classes of "jumpers." First A mining claim is not sub-jei sub-jei t tn relocation subsequent to its eLtry for entry. Sscond A failure to perform labor or make the improvement required by eection 2,324, Revised Statutes, between date of tbe entry and the delivery of the patent, does not work forfeitures of tbe rights acquired by the entry, nor demand its cancellation, when such failure is brought to the attention of the general Und office by tuch reiocalion or otherwise. Third The annual expenditures mimed in section 2,324 are required to support tbe possessory title only. Fourth The objections from third parties which, by tbe last clause of section i!,325, may be heard, relate uniy to the conditions of purchase and not to thoae of Losaeetjion. |