Show DEPUTY SURVEYORS MAY LOCATE A dispatch from carson city nevada under date of oct 22 says united states deputy mineral surveyors are not disqualified from locating claims in the decision of the supreme court of the state of nevada in the case of mccune vs cook the opinion which is very lengthy is by judge norcross concurred in by judge sweeney chief justice talbot dissenting A brief review of the main points of all tha opinion upon the question which for years has been the subject of varied rulings by the general land office will be of interest this is the second time the question has ever been passed upon by any court the other case beins being that of lavagnino Lav agnine vs decided by the supreme court of utah which court following two later decisions of the land department held that a mineral surveyor was disqualified from locating a claim the utah case was appealed to the supreme court of the united states and the decision affirmed upon another point the latter court assuming for the purposes of the case that a deputy mineral surveyor could make such locations reversed itself since the decision of the case the general land office has rendered another decision which has a tendency to overrule the previous later decisions or to leave their correctness open to further consideration it appears from the opinion that the general land office when the point was first presented held in two decisions that a deputy mineral surveyor was not disqualified from making a mineral entry these were later followed by two other opinions reversing the former rulings and holding that a mineral surveyor was disqualified the last decision of the land office leaves the question still unsettled so far as a definite ruling by that office is concerned lindley in his work in mines commenting on these decisions ci gives their present effect as holding that a mineral surveyor may locate a claim but may not himself survey it for patent the whole question is determined by a proper construction of section of the revised statutes of the united states which reads the officers clerks and employed emp loyes in the general land office are prohibited from di erectly or indirectly purchasing or becoming interested in the purchase of any of the public land and any person who violates this section shall forthwith be removed from his office left in the dark this section was originally part of an act of congress of 1835 establishing the general land office at washington D C as part of the department of the interior As the section in the original act it only applied to officers in the bureau at washing ton when the commission having in charge the revision of all the statutes of the united states came to embody the section in the revised statutes they changed somewhat the verbiage which has doubtless led to the subsequent confusion in its construction but as the commission had not authority to change the meaning of a statute the opinion intimates that the section in question has no reference beyond the general land office as it exists at washington independent of whether it is or is not broader in its scope the opinion holds that the section can have no effect upon a deputy mineral surveyor for the reason that he is neither an officer clerk or employed of the general land office cr of any other department of the government the law authorizes the surveyor general in any state or territory to appoint any number of competent surveyors who apply as deputy mineral surveyors such surveyors have no access to the records and files of the surveyor generals office net accorded any private citizen they are not required to keep an office at any particular place or at all they are not required to perform any service for the government ernnie nt or any one else unless they voluntarily see fit to do so when they do accept employment it is a matter of private contract between themselves and the claim owners if they accept employment they them furnish their own instruments and assistants and when they file their plat and field notes in a given case their duty ends the case arose over the ownership of a group of claims near pioche which are said to be very rich the case has been hanging fire for a period of several years it was submitted almost a year ago to the supreme court but chief justice fitzgerald retired beffre the decision was rendered it is said the other two judges justices talbot and norcross could not agree then so the case was again submitted this time to justices talbot norcross and sweeney |