276 TIMBER TAKEN FROM PUBLIC LANDS 



cution under this act must prove that the land from which 

 the timber was cut was actually mineral land and not sub- 

 ject to entry as non-mineral land; * and it is now well settled 

 that under this act timber cannot be cut from lands lying 

 in a recognized mineral district, or adjacent to mineral lands, 

 but not actually themselves valuable for minerals. 2 It was 

 also held that the act of August 4, 1892, (27 Stat. L., 348) 

 extending the "Timber and Stone Act" to all public land 

 states, did not repeal by implication the privileges granted 

 in special states, territories and mineral districts by the 

 act of June 3, 1878, (Chapter 150, 20 Stat. L., 88). 3 The 

 Department .of the Interior held that both of the acts 

 of June 3, 1878, authorized 1tie cutting of timber by the own- 

 er of a sawmill or by other persons provided the timber was 

 intended for the bona fide use of a miner or agriculturist for 

 the purposes contemplated by the acts and that timber cut 

 from actual claims in order that they might be developed 

 could be sold or exchanged for lumber needed for improve- 

 ments. However, the person selling lumber must take a 

 certificate from the purchaser as to the purpose for which 

 he intends to use it, as required by the regulations of the 

 Interior Department. 4 The cutting of timber for smelting 

 or roasting ores is authorized by Chapter 150 of 1878, 

 supra. 5 



The act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. L. 1093) which au- 

 thorized the cutting of timber on public lands for agricul- 

 tural, mining and other domestic purposes, as amended by 

 the acts of February 13, 1893 (27 Stat. L., 444) and March 

 3, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 1436), has been construed by the In- 

 terior Department, which is charged with the duty of regu- 

 lating such use, as contemplating the use of timber cut from 

 non-mineral lands for the same purposes as those permis- 

 sible under the act of June 3, 1878 (20 Stat. L., 88), allowing 

 cutting on mineral lands only. 6 



1. U. S. v. Price Trading Co. et al., C. C. A. 8th Cir. (109 Fed. 239), 48 C. C. A. 331. 



2. U. S. v. Plowman, 216 U. S. 372. See Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S. 313; U. S. 



v. Silver Min. Co., 128 U. S. 673; Anderson V.U.S., 152 Fed. 87, 81 C.C. A. -SU- 

 IT. S. v. Copper Queen Min. Co., 7 Ariz. 80. 60 Pac. 885; Brophy et al. v. O'Hara, 

 34 L. D. 596; Walker v. So. Pac. R.R. Co., 24 L. D. 172; Etting et al. v. Potter, 

 17 L. D. 424. 



3. U. S. v. Price Trading Co. et al., C. C. A. (109 Fed. 239). 



4. U. S. v. Reder (69 Fed. 965). 



.5. U. S. v. United Verde Copper Co. 196 U. S. 207, 25 S. Ct. 222, 49 L. Ed. 449; 



(Afl'mg 8 Ariz. 186, 71 Pac. 954.) 

 .6. 34 L. D. 78. 



