THE USE BOOK. 281 



base a holding that the entry was made in good faith for 

 a home and not for speculative purposes to dispose of the 

 timber on the land. (Same case. Opinion, p. 564.) 



MINERAL LANDS. 



While the statute does not prescribe what is necessary to consti- 

 tute a discovery under the mining laws of the United States, 

 it is essential that it gives reasonable evidence of the fact 

 either that there is a vein or lode carrying precious min- 

 erals, or if it be claimed as placer ground that it is valuable 

 for such mining; and where there is not enough in what a 

 locator claims to have seen to justify a prudent person in 

 the expenditure of money and labor in exploitation, this 

 court will not overthrow a finding of the lower court that 

 there was no discovery. (Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S., 

 313. Syllabus.) 



In determining whether the claim here involved is a valid 

 mining claim or possession, the question of the character of 

 the land raised by the proceedings is a primary one. If the 

 applicant has had ample time and opportunity to show by 

 exploration and development whether valuable mineral 

 deposits exist on the land, and has not done so, and has 

 not in any manner established that the location embraced 

 mineral land under the well-settled rules of determination 

 in cases where the character of the land is directly in issue, 

 his location can not be held to be a valid mining claim, or 

 possession within the meaning of the law. (Brophy et al v. 

 O'Hare, 34 L. D., 596, 598.) 



Should the question of the character of the land be properly 

 presented at any time before patent, it would manifestly be 

 the duty of the [Interior] Department to ascertain whether 

 or not the land contains " valuable deposits," in an ex parte 

 case or a contest. The fact that a claim is contested would 

 not change the character of the land to be taken under this 

 law. In any event it must contain " valuable deposits." 

 (Royal K. Placer, 13 L. D., 89.) 



The Supreme Court has not determined what amount of gold 

 will constitute " valuable deposits," and yet it has indicated 

 in U. S. v. Iron Silver Mining Company (128 U. S., 673) 

 that the deposit must be of substantial value. * * * The 

 court says : " It is the policy of the Government to favor 

 the development of mines of gold and silver and other met- 

 als, and every facility is afforded for that purpose; but it 

 exacts a faithful compliance with the conditions required. 

 There must be a discovery of mineral and a sufficient ex- 

 ploration of the ground to show this fact beyond question. 



