| OCR Text |
Show II HI MEN WIN . EISTJIIC CASE ill 1 Interior Department Reverses If J Land Office in Mining 'I fj Claim Fight. 11 OLD ORDER RESTORED I jj Proven Ore in Commercial 1 Quantities Not Essential; J! Drill Work Counted. ff Special to The Tribune. j& U WASHINGTON'. Fob. Assistant $f M Secretary A. A. Jones of the Interior do- j U partment today rendered a decision in tho $ if i ,aso of the East TInUc Consolidated Mln- fPf j lng comrany, reversing and vacating a Sj 5 I previous decision of tho commissioner of bSeE lh,i general Innd office canceling the mWt mineral entries of the company for the IS Great Eastern No. 1 id thirteen other WfcK lode mining claims In the Utah mining lyf ! district. Salt La ko City la nd distr cU The Mh commissioner of iho seneral land offlco m by decision of March 20. 1911. h"d that Ml two keystone dril wlcs situated upon HB ' Great Eastern claim No. not IfiOf available as common Improvements foi Km; the benetlt of six aljolnlng claims a a I, directed that the mining company ould Mm: b required to show oUicr Widlturcs IB for the benefit of these claims satisfy I . the requirements of the in n lng "6uU-Itt! "6uU-Itt! tlone. The company appealed from tnc S notion of the commissioner who. . by dc-W dc-W $ elslon of September 11. 1011. aYolded U 'g drill hole question and held there were BIS1.; o valid discoveries upon any of M fourteen claims embraced n entry ffl ami for that reason, and ut "card IU to the objections as to the avalUWUt f the drill holes as common lmproxc- iricntF, directed that the entry In Its en-Htfc' en-Htfc' tlroty be canceled. . . Win A motion for rehearing was tiled b U the claimant, company and "P0 "H10 MA consideration of the case the l"loc"rdc5 B Tf partment. bv decision of September o. th 1512. reaffirmed Its previous position ana Bf canceled tin entry. HI Appeal to Interior Department. H i The mining company then filed a pell pe-ll litlnn requiring the exercise of the su H I pervleory autliorlty of the interior Je- I I partment. and upon further consideration Siti of all the questions Involved In tho pc- lfl lltlon for the exercise of supervisory au-B au-B l thurlty the department In Its Present dL-9 dL-9 fi rlofon states that It Is convinced that the showing made by he compani suffl- U clentlv and satisfactorily cstabl shes tne II existence upon each of the claims cm-Hflffl cm-Hflffl braced In the entrv of a discoveo of a MUfl lode or vein of mineral-hearing rock In I place and that the same should have H i been and may now be held to afford a Ml proper basis for. a mining location. It. nil ! true, the decision states, that such D ill vr-ins at the point of discovery do not m Hl'wavs contain mineral in commorclal ffli quantities, but the department did not. ftt' its decision of September 11. 1011. hold or Intend to hold that ore In commercial Iff iuantltles must be discovered before a 1 valid location could be made. jj IS Drill Holes Improvement. B '111 In reference to the objection of the if commissioner of the general land of cc M m as to the availability and acceptability If IB of the drill hoJcH situated on tho Great IB JS Eastern No. 6 location as a common mill mi-ll (h provemcnt for the benefit of that and W tho six other locations, the department la Is of the opinion from the showing made m that thesu drill holgs wero common 1m- if! provem'-nts for the bene tit of tho seven Halms to which their value Is sought to M i,t. applied, and therefore the commls-U commls-U Ml sloner's decision of March 20. 1911, Is roll ro-ll f versed. In concluding his opinion becrc-D becrc-D Jj tary Jones states; I j In view of the foregoing the entry N win be reinstated la tho absence of 111 valid and subsisting adverse claims (' to tho area embraced therein tit initiated since the cancellation of the m entrv and if the -proceedings appear U hi to lie in other respects regular the In onirv will he nassed to patent. I I History of Famous Case. The East Tintlc Consolidated Mining companv made application for patent for a group of fourteen claims situated In the liasL Tlntic mining district, in the summer of 1909. The United States sur-vevor sur-vevor general for the slate of Utah refused re-fused to certifv the expenditures? upon tho' claims, holding that money expended tij drilling with a keystone drill could not be applied in satisfaction of the statulori- requirement of patent. Arguments Argu-ments were presented which satisfied the local ofiicfal?. . however, and the entry at the-local office was allowed Juno 1, The commissioner of the general land office. In a decision dated March 20. 1011. held that the expenditure for drilling I'ould not be allowed and called upon the company for a further showing as to improvement work. An appeal was taken from this decision to the secretary of the interior on the question of the sufficiency uf drill work In satisfaction of tho statutory statu-tory expenditure for patent The secrc-1a secrc-1a rV (First Assistant Adams xvrltlng the decision on September 11, 1011. handed down a decision holding the entry for -.mediation because of lnsufliclent discoveries. dis-coveries. The decision avoided the issue lai.'cd on the appeal, and laid down a ink- of construction of (he law of discovery dis-covery entirely at variance with the decisions de-cisions of the department and of the courts. It was this decision which created cre-ated so much unfavorable comment throughout the mining slates of the west. Decision Raised Storm. Mining men in Utah and elsewhere instantly in-stantly realized that If tho law wore construed and applied In the future aa In the East TlntW case It would virtually lio Impossible to patent mining claims. The result wa3 that tho' matter was takon up bv the mining committee of the Commercial Com-mercial club of Salt Lalto City and by prominent mining men of the state. Telegrams Tele-grams were sent to the department, and to senators and representatives from the mining stales, protesting against tho decision de-cision and declaring that an adherence to It would cripple and ruin tho mining I Industry. A rehearing In the case was applied for, and Assistant Secretary ;. Adams, again writing the decision, on ' September 5. 1?12. reaffinned his previ ous departmental decision, denied the motion for rehearing and ordered tho claims canceled. So vital wao this final . action considered that a movernenL was started to carry tho protest to President Taft. but Inasmuch as Secretary Flshor advised that his disposition was to sup-,port sup-,port the -position taken by First Assistant Assist-ant Secretary Adams, the contemplated action was abandoned. Had Blighting Effect. The result of the department's decision 1 In the Kast Tintlc case proved to be pre- 1 clsely what prominent mining men In tho i west and prominent mining Journals had predicted. Applications at the Salt Lake land office fell off from 75 to 80 per cent, and the same effects wero experienced i I elsewhere in the mining states. Mining J companies and Individual mining men, 1 with the East Tintlc decision ntarlng i them In thft face, contented themselves I with doing the annual assessment work R on their claims and mado no effort to at- I tempt to secure patent. The result was I that new capital ceased to enter the mln- I Iny industry, refused to seek Investment 0 in new raining ventures and development 1 of new mining properties wan seriously j 1 retarded. ; Case Carried to Department. I With tho change In administration the I attorneys for tho company, Cheney, Jen- I ? sen & Holman, Immediately filed a mo- ' lion to vacate the decision, and for the exercise of supervisory power by the secretary sec-retary of tho interior on tho ground that this was a case of exceptional moment and extraordinary merit. The new officials offi-cials of the department of tho interior allowed the motion, and consented to an oral argument of the matter, which was set for November 14, 1013. Mr. John Jensen Jen-sen of the firm of Cheney, Jensen & Holman. Hol-man. made the oral argument on behalf of the company at this hearing, there being present all of tho officials of the department of the Interior, tho general land office and tho geological survey who arc connected with mining work. 1$ was contended In that argument that the department had In the East Tintlc case misconstrued tho law on tho subject of discovery and misapplied It to the facts of that case. It was also contended that the drill work, such as had been dono on the East Tintlc property, was entitled to bo applied not only as an Improvement on tho claim on which It was situated, but aa a common Improvement for all the claims benefited. Contentions Sustained. In the decision which has just been rendered, both of these contentions arc sustained. Tho reinstating of the entry by the department is a declaration that discoveries such as exist on those claims arc sufficient to entitle mining claims to pas3 to patent, and that it la not necessary that discoveries, In order to bo sufficient, should disclose- ore In paying or commorclal quantities. In thl3 respect the decision is of vital Importance Import-ance to tho mining Industry, because It Is an Indication that In tho future tho department will continue to construe the mining laws as they had been previously construed both by tho courts and tho department. It means that many mining companies and mining men who have been withholding action toward patenting their properties can now safelv proceed lSi A iS y,Ul0Uf that discoveries which had formerly been considered valid would be held invalid and their claims canceled and thrown open to others Of Vital Importance. Tho decision is also of vital Imnortanrn ln Ul?Z I1,5?"10 $r tho Qrst Umo. ?ho question of the applicability 0r drlO work as a common improvement. This ntiPs-.tlon ntiPs-.tlon Cias never beforo been passed upon by tho department of tho intorlor It Indicates that the department Is progressive progress-ive and Is willing to allow development work done In accordance with the latest and most Improved mothoda of mlnin" to bo applied In satisfaction of Its requirement require-ment for patent. The ueo of ffi J very common In many patented mining properties In this and other states but heretofore, because of uncertainty ln the law, mining applicants have hesitated to do development work by that method fnr fear the department might not allow It as improvement work. Tho decision lust given removes any uncertainty aa to the law on this point and opens tho wav to the nno of drlllH In developing unpatented properties, while at tho sumo time , all lng that work to be applied In accordant with the required statutory expenditure This decision marks tho final chanter of a continuous four-year effort to . tabllsh tho applicability of drill work as a. common Improvement and to rcestabl'lsh the law with respect to discovery as It had previously been enunciated and an-plied an-plied by tho courts and tho dopartmnL While the attorneys In the case regard the tlnal outcome as a vindication of the position taken by the company, and a complete trlumphv for their clients, on both the vital Issues involved, yet In a larger sense they regard It ns a decision of vital Importance to the whole mining Industry, |
