“Mineral Lands” as used in Rev. St. U.S. section 2302

[Assembler]

Below is some information about "Mineral Lands":

The term “Mineral Lands” as used in Rev. St. U.S. section 2302 is one of broader significance than “Known Mines”. It refers to a class of lands, rather than specific tracts easily ascertainable, not only by the Land Department, but by the applicants themselves. Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Co. v. Haverly, 90 Pac. 333, 338, 11 Ariz. 241.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

Is this "Mineral Lands" the foundation of a "Mining District" that is established by "Surveys"?

 

[Goldwasher]

NO!

 

[Assembler]

Just asking for information. Can "Known Mines" be a foundation for a "Mining District"?

 

[Assembler]

Identified

Just asking for information. Can "Known Mines" be a foundation for a "Mining District"?

The following may shed some light on the topic:

The public lands are not to be deemed surveyed or identified until approval of the survey and filing of the plat thereof in the district land office by direction of the BLM.

 

[Assembler]

"township exteriors" and "subdivision of townships".

The following may shed some light on the topic:

Limits of closure

Under the general subjects of "township exteriors" and "subdivision of townships" certain definite limits were prescribed.

 

[Goldwasher]

Just asking for information. Can "Known Mines" be a foundation for a "Mining District"?

NO!NO!NO!

 

[Assembler]

NO!NO!NO!

Can you back this up with research?

 

[Clay Diggins]

NO!NO!NO!

1 U.S.C.
Title 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Front Matter

Repeals

Section 2 of act July 30, 1947, provided that the sections or parts thereof of the Statutes at Large or the Revised Statutes covering provisions codified in this Act are repealed

The very first Law in the very first Title of the United States Code makes it clear, once again, that the Revised Statutes and the Statutes at Large are NOT law. All the References to RSxxx are invalid and were rejected by Congress within a year of their adoption in 1878. If you quote revised statutes you might as well be an idiot dribbling on the corner as far as the courts are concerned.

The fact that an individual and it's various Sepa offspring are allowed to quote Revised Statutes as if they have some importance or relevance to any current law does not in any way change the fact that those dribblings have been rejected by Congress and the courts for more than 135 years.

Responding to dribblings is counterproductive. When you see a pool of drool on the street corner the only productive response is to walk around the dribblings and ignore the various Sepa ramblings emitting from the puppet. To do otherwise is to encourage further dribblings and the generation of new puppets.

Heavy Pans

 

[Oregon Viking]

Well obviously.

 

[Oregon Viking]

And...
The survey section 2, shall not be sub sectioned with parcel A. Therefore dimension 12 is not comparable with parameter 77.
But... the 9th parcel, can and may be considered to be subsequently rendered obsolete. Sub section A-12 may be admissible as a "survey section" previously regarded as mineral misgiving... as such.. completely and in-dip-shitable...totally atta comprehension.

 

[Assembler]

What is the 'History of the Class of Lands' vs. 'Specific Tracts' in the above refered Case?
Forget the "Revised Statutes and the Statutes at Large Code".

 

[Assembler]

Some History

What is the 'History of the Class of Lands' vs. 'Specific Tracts' in the above refered Case?
Forget the "Revised Statutes and the Statutes at Large Code".

The following is a little 'History' as pointed out in the above Case about "Classes of Lands" ( after 1878):

Rev. St. U. S. c. 6, sec. 2318 et seq. [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1423], provides for the acquisition of title to unappropriated mineral lands belonging to the United States, and sets forth at considerable length the mode of procedure in acquiring such title. These chapters, which, as amended in 1891, embody the law that was in force in 1899 and thereafter, during which time the proceedings were had in regard to this land, intrust the disposal of both classes of lands to the land department and provide that the Issues of fact that arise In all cases in regard to the patenting of agricultural or mineral lands, whether In a contest between different claimants for agricultural lands, or between different claimants for mineral lands, or In a contest between claimants for the same tract of land, in which one party may claim as agricultural, and the other as mineral, any public land of the United States, shall be submitted to the determination of the proper officials of the land department Their findings on all issues of fact In cases thus submitted to them for determination are made conclusive the same as judgments of courts of record, and can only be collaterally attacked when invalid by reason of fraud In their procurement Wilcox v. McConnell, 13 Pet (U. S.) 511, 10 L. Ed. 264; Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's Heirs et al. 18 How. (U. S.) 44, 15 L. Ed. 285; Lytle et al. v. State of Arkansas, 9 How. (U. S.) 332, 13 L. Ed. 153; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 72, 20 L. Ed. 485; Warren v. Van Brunt 19 Wall. (U. S.) 053, 22 L. Ed. 219; Shepley et al. v. Cowan et al. 91 U. S. 340, 23 L. Ed. 424; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 535, 24 L. Ed. 848; Heath v. Wallace, 138 U. S. 573, 11 Sup. Ct. 380, 34 I* Ed. 1063. There have been cited as exceptions to this rule cases in which patents have been issued for lands that had been previously disposed of, and were therefore not, at the date of patent, unappropriated public lands of the United States, and cases In which land patented under certain laws had been theretofore, by act of Congress, specially reserved or exempted from patent under such laws, and therefore the patents Issued by the land department had been, In these instances, held to be void as being in excess of its jurisdiction.

The following show a little 'History' of the "Land Office Tribunal" ( after 1878):

The Secretary of the Interior Is charged with the supervision of the public business of the United States relating to the public lands, including mines. Rev. St. 441 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 252]. The Commissioner of the General Land Office Is required to perform, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, all executive duties appertaining to the surveying and sale of the public lands of the United States, or In any wise respecting such public lands, and also such as relate to the issuing of patents for all grants of lands under the authority of the government Rev. St 453 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 257]. The land department of the United States then, Including In that term, the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and their subordinate officers, constitutes a special tribunal, under these and other provisions of the laws of the United States, vested with the Judicial power to hear and determine the claims of all parties to the public lands it is authorized to dispose of, and to execute Its judgments by conveyances to the parties entitled to them. In every case there must. In the nature of things, be a decision of questions of fact and questions of law. A certificate or patent is the record evidence of the judgment of this tribunal, and it necessarily follows that, when such a judgment is rendered in a case within the jurisdiction of the land department, it is, like the judgment of other tribunals, vested with judicial powers, impervious to collateral attack. United States v. W. & St P. R. Co., 07 Fed. 948, 15 C. C. A. 90.

 

[Assembler]

If you have some 'History of the Class of Lands' vs. 'Specific Tracts' before the 1878 date listed please post.

 

[Goldwasher]

And...
The survey section 2, shall not be sub sectioned with parcel A. Therefore dimension 12 is not comparable with parameter 77.
But... the 9th parcel, can and may be considered to be subsequently rendered obsolete. Sub section A-12 may be admissible as a "survey section" previously regarded as mineral misgiving... as such.. completely and in-dip-shitable...totally atta comprehension.

DUDE. ..I already said that...sheesh

 

[Assembler]

The very first Law in the very first Title of the United States Code makes it clear, once again, that the Revised Statutes and the Statutes at Large are NOT law. All the References to RSxxx are invalid and were rejected by Congress within a year of their adoption in 1878. If you quote revised statutes you might as well be an idiot dribbling on the corner as far as the courts are concerned.

The fact that an individual and it's various Sepa offspring are allowed to quote Revised Statutes as if they have some importance or relevance to any current law does not in any way change the fact that those dribblings have been rejected by Congress and the courts for more than 135 years.

Responding to dribblings is counterproductive. When you see a pool of drool on the street corner the only productive response is to walk around the dribblings and ignore the various Sepa ramblings emitting from the puppet. To do otherwise is to encourage further dribblings and the generation of new puppets.

Heavy Pans

Great that this is pointed out. Can a little more details be posted so if one is 'Directed by any BLM Officer' one will be able to point out the details.
Thank you.

 

[Assembler]

Great that this is pointed out. Can a little more details be posted so if one is 'Directed by any BLM Officer' one will be able to point out the details.
Thank you.

To help out a little:

The authority for the material in the United States Code comes from its enactment through the legislative process and not from its presentation in the Code.
The distinction between enacted and unenacted titles is largely academic because the Code is nearly always accurate.
Where a title has been enacted into positive law, a court may neither permit nor require proof of the underlying original Acts of Congress.

 

[Assembler]

Terms of reservation employed in various acts.

To help out a little:

Terms of reservation employed in various acts.
https://books.google.com/books?id=W...WAhVX12MKHQtJC0AQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q&f=false
Can you help with reading and pointing out details?
Thank you.

 

[Assembler]

The following may shed some light on the topic of "Mineral":

Commissioner Drummond thus enunciates the rule which has since governed the land department:
In the sense in which the term “mineral” was used by congress, it seems difficult to find a definition that will embrace what mineralogist agree should be included…….From a careful examination of the matter, the conclusion I reach as to what constitutes a valuable mineral deposit is this: That whatever is recognized as a mineral by the standard authorities on the subject, where the same is found in quantities and quality to render the land sought to be patented more valuable on this account than for the purposed of agriculture, should be treated by the office as coming with the purview of the mining act of May 10, 1872


It must be apparent that, for the purpose of issuing patent, there is lodged somewhere the authority and duty to ascertain whether a claim contains “valuable deposits,” for no other land can be so acquired. It is equally clear that for the same purpose such authority is vested in this department, charged, as it is, with the determination of the facts prior to the issuance of patent.

The proof of the mineral character of the land must be specific, and based upon the actual production of mineral; that it is not enough to show that neighboring or adjoining lands are mineral in character, and that the lands in controversy may hereafter develop minerals to such an extent as to show its mineral character, but it must appear from actual production of mineral, and not from a theory that the lands may hereafter produce it.
When the development, and its results, display such promise that the prudent, reasonable man would be justified in expending money and labor in legitimate mining operations, untainted by an appearance of speculation, the land must be held mineral within the meaning of that term as used in the granting act. (Pacific railroad acts.)

 

[Assembler]

The following may shed some light on the topic of "Mineral":

Forgot to point out that post #19 above is in part the reason for "End lines shall be parallel" (Act May 10, 1872) as it applies to both until "Determination of the facts prior to issuance of patent".