226 



AMLRICAX lURESTRY 



rity of the forest policy. They appealed to the Land 

 Office, upon which rests the responsibility for passing 

 upon the validity of claims to title, requesting immediate 

 examination of those claims to detennine whether or not 

 there was mineral present. Perhaps certain advertise- 

 ments appearing in California i^iapers offering mining 

 claims for sale and 

 guaranteeing that 

 they would "assay 

 12 sugar pines per 

 acre" hastened this 

 action. 



Urged by this 

 necessity, the De- 

 partment looked up 

 the precedents and 

 decided that it was 

 entirely within the 

 authority of the 

 Secretary to inves- 

 tigate the character 

 of a mining claim 

 at any time, with- 

 out waiting for the 

 claimant to seek a 

 patent. It is gener- 

 ally known that but 

 few claims filed are 

 ever patented, and 

 that in thousands 

 of cases the claim- 

 ants' rights aw 

 kept alive for man; 

 years by complying 

 annually with the 

 assessment require- 

 ments; hence in the 

 absence of such au- 

 thority, the Gov- 

 ernment would be 

 powerless to inter- 

 fere with a mining 

 claim regardless of 

 whether it is valid 

 or fraudulent. This 

 new policy was 



clearly set forth in a Department decision in the case 

 of II. H. Yard, et al, 1909, in which the right to examine 

 such claims at any time was announced . 



A few of the most troublesome mining claims in the 

 Grand Canyon were the jiroperty of one R. II. Cameron. 

 The Canyon lay within and was a part of a National Forest. 

 In order to protect this area from encroachments under 

 the mining and other land laws, the Canyon was with- 

 drawn in 1908 as a National Monument, and the Depart- 

 ment held a hearing on several of the Cameron claims to 

 detennine their validity'. The evidence showed that no 

 mineral had ever been discovered on these claims; and 

 under the precedent established by the Yard case, they 

 would have been cancelled. 



THE Uli\'IL'S (_ ORKSCREW 



In this picture are shown the holes dug in prospect work by some of the men who established mining 

 claims. If their claims were declared legal and the land became theirs they could charge tolls to the 

 tourist who descended into the Canyon. 



But at this juncture, the entire poHcy of the Interior 

 Department was o\'ertumed b\' a new decision touching 

 this ver\- question. Two mining claims located by J. B. 

 Nichols and Cy Smith on the Wallowa National Forest 

 in Oregon were challenged by the Forest Service as fraud- 

 ulent and intended for uses not contemplated by the 



mining laws. The 

 Land Office exam- 

 ined and cancelled 

 the claims. But 

 when this case was 

 appealed, the deci- 

 sion which was ren- 

 dered declared that 

 the Department 

 had no authority 

 whatever to inter- 

 fere with a claimant 

 until he chose in 

 good time to bring 

 up his own case for 

 patent, and that 

 questions of the 

 validity of such 

 claims must be set- 

 tled in the courts. 

 This revolutionary 

 decision was ren- 

 dered in 1913. 



The owner of the 

 Cameron claims in 

 the Grand Canyon 

 was quick to seize 

 the advantage thus 

 offered and throw 

 the case into the 

 District Court 

 of the District of 

 Colimibia at Wash- 

 i n g t o n , which 

 court, acting upon 

 the decision of the 

 Interior Depart- 

 ment, upheld the 

 claimant. 



Owing to the 

 gravity of the issue involved, the Secretary permitted the 

 case to go to appeal in order that the courts might be 

 permitted to pass upon the policy of his subordinates, and 

 settle the question. The courts soon spoke and in no 

 uncertain tciTns. 



In September, 191.5, Judge Sawtelle of the District 

 Court of Arizona refused to Cameron an injunction against 

 the Department of Interior, and denied that the courts 

 had any jurisdiction in such cases. 



In December, 1916, the Court of Appeals of the Dis- 

 trict of Columbia ujjheld this view in case 2971, Franklin 

 K. Lane, vSecretary of Interior, vs. Ralph H. Cameron, 

 and placed the responsib lity of protecting the public 

 against fraud squarely on the shoulders of the Depart- 



