Ami^rican Fori;st Congress 321 



right of possession, and is entitled to the exclusive 

 enjoyment of the surface of the ground located. The 

 consequence has been that no effort to determine the 

 real character of the land was made, the needy miner 

 preferring to take the timber on land separated from 

 his claim and run the risk of being brought before the 

 court for cutting and removing timber from public 

 lands illegitimately, rather than to place the timber 

 beyond his own reach through proving the tract to be 

 mineral in character, and assure its subsequent location 

 by interested parties, who would surely take advantage 

 of the showing made, to their benefit and to his injury. 

 It may be suggested that the person desiring the 

 timber might himself locate and secure control of both 

 timber and land ; but the reply is that the law as con- 

 strued- requires that the timber cut from a given claim 

 must be used on that claim, or on a group of which that 

 claim forms a part, and cannot be removed for use on 

 a different claim. This most annoying complication 

 has been fully appreciated by the Government and by 

 courts, and the result has been that really very little 

 regard has been paid to the character of the land from 

 which timber was cut for mining purposes. The con- 

 dition precedent to justify the cutting was practically 

 neglected, and it was deemed sufificient that the timber 

 taken was devoted to a use contemplated in the law. 

 The necessities of the miners, and the peculiar provis- 

 ions referred to, combined to make the majority of the 

 miners of the Northwest law-breakers. In fact, few 

 miners knew the exact requirements of the law. It 

 was commonly understood that whatever forest pro- 

 ducts might be needed could be taken anywhere any 

 at any time. This erroneous view often resulted in 

 prosecutions, which usually terminated in acquittals 

 that have brought discredit upon the administration 



