WASHINGTON.

1. Post in a conspicuous place at the point of discovery a notice containing name of the claim, name of the locator, date of discovery and posting of notice, which is considered date of location, description by reference to legal subdivisions if on surveyed lands, otherwise with reference to natural objects or permanent monuments.

2. Within 30 days from discovery distinctly mark the location on the ground so that its boundaries may be readily traced; marking must be done even if claim is located by legal subdivisions.

3. Within 30 days from discovery record in the office of the Auditor of the County a certificate of location containing the same as the posted notice.

4. Within 60 days from discovery perform labor equivalent in the aggregate to at least $10 worth for each 20 acres.

5. Upon performance of such labor file with the County Auditor an affidavit showing the nature and kind of work done.

WYOMING.

1. Securely fix upon the claim a plain notice containing the name of the claim, name of the locators, date of discovery and number of feet or acres claimed.

2. Mark the boundaries by substantial posts or stone monuments at each corner of the claim.

3. Within 30 days from date of discovery record with Recorder of the Mining District, if such district be organized, and within 90 days from discovery record with the County Clerk a location certificate containing same as posted notice and adding description by such designation of natural or fixed objects as shall identify the claim beyond question.

Alaska, California, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Oregon and Utah have no statutory provisions for the manner of locating and recording placer claims, and in those States such locations are governed by district rules, where such rules exist.

A placer location made according to the forms given for Colorado, would doubtless be sufficient in any of the above named States where district rules do not require more specific details.

No Reservation Against Patentee.-When patented under a location of the ground as a "placer mining or stone quarry claim" the patentee owns all minerals found within its bounds except known lodes. -Freezer v. Sweeney, 21 Pac. 20. And doubtless he owns to the same extent under a location before patent subject to the right to locate lode discoveries over the same ground, and except lodes apexing outside but dipping underneath.

Homestead.-Lands located and used as a placer and also used as a residence by the owner, may be selected by him as a homestead, under the State law of exemptions, the question of title in the United States being excluded.— Gaylord v. Place, 33 Pac. 484.

Area in Feet or Acres.-By the following table the number of feet necessary to include any desired number of acres when in the shape of a square or parallelogram may be ascertained:

2640 x 2640

66

66

160

66

43560 square feet equal one acre.

A square 208.71* feet in length and width makes one acre.

PLACER CONTAINING LODE.

Claim Intersected by Lode.-R. S. 2333.-Where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placerclaim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for a patent for the placerclaim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case a patent shall issue for the placer-claim, subject to the provisions of this chapter, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer-claim, or any placer-claim not embracing any vein or lode-claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in section twentythree hundred and twenty, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer-claim, an application for a patent for such placer-claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer-claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim; but where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer-claim is not known, a patent for the placer-claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof. Sec. 11, May 10, 1872.

Known Lodes Excluded.-An application for patent to a placer claim is not supposed to include any known lode running through it, unless such lode is owned by the applicant and especially designated in the application, but it covers any after discovered lode.-O'Keefe v. Cannon, 52 Fed. 898.

The placer patentee acquires no title to lodes known to exist prior to and not included in his application.— Clary v. Hazlitt, 67 Cal. 286.

What are Known Lodes.-Where a lode within the placer lines has been discovered, located and recorded, and has kept up its labor to the time of the placer application, it is clear that such is a "known lode” beyond any possible danger of construction.

But where lodes, though known, have not been considered worth locating, or after location have been

abandoned, or where they have been known as a matter of common knowledge to be within the lines, as in the case of outcrops not considered worth working-these points admit of more or less controversy.

In the case of Reynolds v. The Iron Silver M. Co. 116 U. S. 687, the court ruled that the lode in or underlying the Wells & Moyer placer being shown to be known to the applicants, could not be recovered by them in ejectment as against adjoining lode owners who had worked beyond their side lines into the deposit.

Known but Not of Known Value.-It has been with much reason held that a lode or vein though known to exist but having no such value as would justify its exploration or working, or by like expressions to the same effect-is not within the exception of the patent.-O'Keefe v. Cannon, 52 Fed. 898; Brownfield v. Bier, 39 Pac. 461; Butte Co. v. Sloan, 40 Pac. 217. It must be a lode of known practical value for working.-Montana Ry. v. Migeon, 68 Fed. 811; 77 Fed. 249; Casey v. Thieviege, 48 Pac. 394.

The allegation in an answer that there were no known deposits of sufficient value to pay--is a proper plea of no known lodes and does not state a conclusion of law.-O'Keefe v. Cannon, 52 Fed. 898.

Known but Not Recorded.-It was held in Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 348, that a located claim was a known lode. But in Iron Silver Co. v. Mike & Starr Co. 143 U. S. 394, the Supreme Court go further and hold that it is sufficient to exclude it that it be a lode known to exist, and that where a lode has been notoriously cut in a tunnel within the claim, it was such a disclosure of the vein as to bind the patentee to a knowledge of it. And while holding that not every outcrop on a crevice suggesting mineral would constitute a known lode within the class to be excepted, yet any vein disclosed and understood to be of value was excluded, and whether a vein was known and was of such a character as to be excluded, was a question of fact for nisi prius decision by jury.

The mere fact that a lode record had been made over the ground now claimed as placer does not prove that there was a vein on which to record.-23 L. D. 476; Butte Co. v. Sloan, 40 Pac. 217. And when the fact of lode or no lode has been left on conflicting evidence to the jury the court will not set their finding aside.-Id.

To Whom Known.-In the Mike & Starr case it was held that it must be known to the applicant or to the community in general. If obvious to casual inspection, knowledge was chargeable to the owner. Possibly under this decision, if disclosed by prospect shafts made by promiscuous parties, it would be enough, if such pits remained open and disclosed the vein. But a lode discovered, located and of record before the patent application, is a known lode whether or not the patentee had knowledge of it.-Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U.

S. 348.

Date of Discovery Material.-It had been held that the lode (to be an excepted known lode) must be discovered before entry, but the date of application is now the conceded date.-Dahl v. Raunheim, 132 U. S. 260; Mike & Starr case, supra.

Necessity of Adverse or Protest.—If a known lode, whether held by strangers, or not located at all, though known to exist, is under the express terms of the statute as recognized by many decisions excepted from the grant-it would seem a necessary deduction that it need not file any adverse claim to preserve its rights. But if it be neglected either to procure an exclusion from the placer survey or to adverse and the placer patent issues, the Land Office will not as of course entertain an application to patent the lode. Before the application will be received it requires a hearing in the local Land Office after notice to the placer patentee as to whether in fact the lode was known to exist, and unless upon such hearing the fact is affirmatively so found, it denies the application.— South Star Lode, 20 L. D. 204; 27 Id. 676.