62 LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS. 



and money in developing it, with the reasonable expectation of find- 

 ing ore in paying quantities. (United States v. Lavenson, 206 Fed., 

 755.) 



To constitute a valid discovery upon a lode mining claim three 

 elements are necessary: (1) There must be a vein or lode of quartz 

 or other rock in place; (2) the quartz or other rock in place must 

 carry gold or some other valuable mineral deposit; and (3) the two 

 preceding elements, when taken together, must be such as to warrant 

 a prudent man in the expenditure of his time and money in the effort 

 to develop a valuable mine. (Jefferson-Montana Copper Mines Co., 

 41 L. D., 320.) 



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 

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

 valuable deposits of mineral, which means more than a mere dis- 

 coverv that might be sufficient to support a location in the first in- 

 stance, (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 

 mineral character should be reasonably clear, the finding of colors 

 of gold, even though fairly good prospects of gold, in placer pros- 

 pecting, 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. (Steele v. Tanana Mines E, 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 be- 

 cause it controls the entrance to a cavern containing crystalline de- 

 posits, specimens of which are sold for profit, is not subject to loca- 

 tion under the mineral laws. (South Dakota Mining Co. v. Mc- 

 Donald, 30 L. D., 357.) 



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 minerals, 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 exploita- 

 tion this court will not overthrow a finding of the lower court that 

 there was no discovery. (Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S., 313, 

 syllabus.) 



The exposure of substantially worthless deposits on the surface of 

 a lode mining claim; the finding of mere surface indications of 

 mineral within its limits ; the discovery of valuable mineral deposits 

 outside the claim, or deductions from established geological facts 

 relating to it, one or all of which matters may reasonably give rise 

 to a hope or belief, however strong it may be, that a valuable mineral 

 deposit exists within the claim, will neither suffice as a discovery 

 thereon, nor be entitled to be accepted as the equivalent thereof. 

 (East Tintic Consolidated Mining Claim, 40 L. D., 271 ; see same case, 

 43 L. D., 79.) 



The exposure of substantially valueless deposits on the surface of a 

 lode mining claim, in themselves insusceptible of practicable develop- 



