280 THE USE BOOK. 



TIMBER CUTTING ON MINING CLAIMS. 



The defendant in this case occupies the premises under this 

 law [the mineral-land law] and claims the right to cut and 

 remove the timber therefrom as incidental to and in aid 

 of his right to mine thereon. But he is not the owner of 

 the land until he pays for it and obtains the United States 

 patent. It is a part of the public domain. In the mean- 

 time the defendant is occupying it under a mere license 

 from the Government, which may be revoked at any time 

 by the repeal of the act giving it. (Deady, J., in U. S. v. 

 Nelson, 5 Sawyer, 68, 71 (1878).) 



An occupant of a mineral claim who has applied for a patent 

 has no right, before the purchase price is paid and he re- 

 ceives a certificate, to cut the timber on such claim with 

 intent to export or remove the same, and a license from 

 him to so cut the timber is no protection to the licensee 

 as against the Government. (Teller v. United States, 313 

 Fed. Rep., 273. Syllabus.) 



The exclusive right to occupy and work a mineral claim given 

 to the locator by the mining laws during his occupancy does 

 not segregate such claim from the public domain so as to 

 exclude such land from the operation of Rev. Slat., 2461, 

 20 Stat, 89, and 27 Stat., 348, making it a misdemeanor for 

 any person to cut timber on the public lands. (Same.) 



TIMBER CUTTING ON HOMESTEAD CLAIMS. 



The fact that lands may be chiefly valuable for the timber 

 thereon does not exclude them from settlement and entry 

 under the homestead law, but it must clearly appear that 

 the settlement or entry upon such lands was made in good 

 faith for the purpose of making the tract a home; and 

 where the entryman in such case submits commutation 

 proof and pays a price to cut short the period of residence 

 required by the homestead law, he invites scrutiny and 

 challenges judgment as to the good faith of his entry. 

 (Patten v. Quackenbush, 35 L. D., 561. Syllabus.) 



Taking into consideration the value of the timber and quality 

 of the soil as shown by preponderant competent testimony, 

 the meager residence and improvements, in view of his 

 financial ability, the early final proof and termination of 

 such residence, and the fact that claimant never had a 

 domestic animal or fowl on this land or otherwise indicated 

 an intention of permanently residing thereon, the Depart- 

 ment is unable to find in the record any facts on which to 



