38 NATIONAL FOREST MANUAL LAWS. 



owner, but if the latter waives his right of exclusive possession by 

 arrangement with a power permittee, the power permit becomes 

 effective on the land, and the Government may impose a charge for its 

 use. (2 Sol. Op., 763; see also 2 Sol. Op., 865.) 



Where, however, timber on a mining claim, by reason of insect in- 

 festation, is a menace to the surrounding National Forest timber, the 

 Government may sell it. (Lewis v. Garlock United States, inter- 

 venor, 168 Fed., 153.) 



Powers and duties of Land Department. The Government is a party in 

 interest in every case involving the disposal of the public lands, and 

 when such lands are sought to be acquired under any of the public 

 land laws (in this case the mineral laws), it is not only within the power 

 but it is the duty of the Land Department to see that the lands are dis- 

 posed of according to law, and not in violation or evasion of the law. 

 (Grand Canyon Ry. Co. v. Cameron, 36 L. D., 66.) 



Should the question of the character of the land be properly pre- 

 sented 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 de- 

 posits." (The Royal K Placer, 13 L. D., 86-89.) 



The Land Department has full authority of its own motion or at the 

 instance of others to inquire into and determine whether mining loca- 

 tions within the National Forests were preceded by the requisite 

 discovery of mineral and whether the lands are of the character sub- 

 ject to occupation and purchase under the mining laws, notwithstand- 

 ing the locator has not applied for patent; and if the locations are found 

 invalid the lands covered thereby will be administered as part of the 

 National Forest without regard to such locations. (H. H. Yard et al., 

 38 L. D., 59.) 



Lands belonging to the United States can not be lawfully located, or 

 title thereto by patent legally acquired, under the mining laws, for 

 purposes or uses foreign to those of mining or the development of 

 minerals; and should it be shown in case of an application for mineral 

 patent that the claims applied for were not located in good faith for 

 mining purposes, but for the purpose of securing control of a trail upon 

 lands belonging to the United States, susceptible of such control by 

 reason of the surrounding physical conditions, so as to place the claim- 

 ant in a position to charge for the privilege of using the trail, and 

 thereby to prevent the free and unrestricted use thereof by the public, 

 such claims would be fraudulent from their inception, and patents 

 thereto could not be obtained under the mining laws. (Grand Canyon 

 Ry. Co. v. Cameron, 36 L. D., 67.) 



Lands subject to mineral entry Discovery. If the land contains gold 

 or other valuable deposits in loose earth, sand, or gravel which can be 

 secured with profit, that fact will satisfy the demand of the Govern- 

 ment as to the character of the land as placer ground, whatever the 

 incidental advantages it may offer to the applicant for a patent. 

 (United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 128 U. S., 673, 684.) 



To sustain an application for mineral patent, as against persons 

 alleging the land to be nonmineral, it must appear that mineral exists 

 in quantity and value sufficient to subject it to disposal under the min- 

 ing laws. In other words, the land must be shown to contain valuable 

 deposits of mineral, which means more than a mere discovery that 

 might be sufficient to support a location in the first instance. (Brophy 

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



Under the established rule that when public land is sought to be 

 taken out of the category of agricultural lands the evidence of its min- 

 eral character should be reasonably clear, the finding of colors of gold, 

 even though fairly good prospects of gold, in placer prospecting, is not 

 sufficient to establish the mineral character of the ground and sustain 

 a mineral location thereof as against a prior entry under the homestead 

 laws. (State v. Tanana Mines R. Co., 148 Fed., 678, syllabus.) 



Land not shown to contain valuable minerals of the kinds usually 

 developed by mining operations, but which is chiefly valuable because 

 it controls the entrance to a cavern containing crystalline deposits, 



