LANDS MINING DECISIONS. 61 



the [Interior] Department to ascertain whether or not the land con- 

 tains " 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." (The Koyal 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 

 locations 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, notwith- 

 standing 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. (IT. H. 

 Yard et al., 38 L. D., 59.) Reversed in decision of October 24, 1913, 

 Nichols and Smith case, La Grande, 07670, but pending on motion 

 for rehearing. 



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 min- 

 eral 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 claimant 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 Ey. 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 sat- 

 isfy the demand of the Government 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.) 



A mining location is not perfected or completed until a discovery 

 of mineral within the limits of the claim has been made ; and where 

 no discovery was made prior to the filing of an application for patent, 

 such application and the proceedings thereunder, being without legal 

 foundation, can not be recognized as a basis for mineral entry or pat- 

 ent. (Bay City Oil Co. et al. v. Alvarado Oil Co., 43 L. D., 397.) 



To attach mineral character to public lands it is not sufficient to 

 demonstrate that adjacent lands are mineral in character. Outcrop- 

 pings on the land itself are more or less evidentiary, but by no means 

 conclusive of its mineral character, and off the land their value as 

 evidence rapidly lessens. (United States v. Kostelak et al., 207 Fed., 

 447.) 



To constitute a discovery sufficient to initiate a mining right it is 

 necessary that mineral-bearing rock in place be found under such 

 circumstances and of such character that a reasonably prudent man, 

 not necessarily a skilled miner, would be justified in expending time 



