tection of the water supply from diminution by the wanton and useless destruction of the forests in which the streams have their origin. These reservations, under the legislation providing for their establishment, were not subject to the operation of the land laws, but the act of February 20, 1896 (29 Stat. 11), permits the acquisition of mining claims in those reservations of this character in Colorado, and by the act of June 4, 1897, the right was given to locate and hold mining claims in any forest reserve. This legislation provides for the preservation of the timber.

MILITARY RESERVATIONS.

As the necessity for the use thereof ceases, the various Military reservations are being restored to the public domain, the agricultural lands therein after survey to be disposed of under the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 103). The mineral lands in the reservations, however, become subject to occupation and purchase immediately upon the abandonment thereof by the War Department.

PRIVATE LAND GRANTS.

In those portions of the country acquired from Mexico, particularly in California, Arizona and New Mexico, exist large tracts of land granted to individuals by the Spanish and Mexican governments. They are called Private Land Grants, and under the treaty of cession the rights of the claimants are preserved. Since the acquisition of this Territory the United States has confirmed and patented many of these grants.

Many are still unconfirmed and unpatented, generally because of the difficulty of determining to the satisfaction of all interested the proper situation and extent of the land granted. Those finally adjusted have been disposed of in accordance with the terms of the grant, interpreted in the light of the laws of Mexico. These grants were generally pastoral grants, all minerals under the laws being reserved to the State. However, all patents issued by the United States were

11 30 Stats., 11-36.

absolute conveyances, the Government making no reservation of minerals therein.12 Indeed, this has never been done in any case, the only exceptions and reservations contained in patents being those relating to easements, and those designed to protect the rights, under the law, of other private proprietors. Hence mineral claimants have no right to prospect and locate mining claims on such patented grants. They are private property, and the minerals therein belong to the owner under the patent. Neither have mining prospectors the right to explore and occupy any portion of the lands within the claimed limits of unconfirmed grants. Until finally adjudicated they are in a state of complete reservation and are excluded from the operation of the public land laws.

By the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 854), a court of private land claims was established for the purpose of adjusting all such grants. Section 13 of this act contains a declaration that all valuable minerals are reserved to the United States, and in effect directs the court to make a finding of facts relative to this particular if the point is raised. These grants are now being patented by the Land Department under the decrees of this court.

STATUS OF RESERVED LANDS.

Under his authority as Chief Executive, the President may establish reservations embracing unappropriated mineral lands, and such lands are not thereafter subject to location and purchase.13

It may, however, be stated as. a general rule applicable to reservations of whatever character, with the exception of private land grants governed by the treaty with Mexico, that no rights acquired by citizens of the United States prior to the establishment of the reservation are affected thereby. Accordingly, mining locations regularly made prior to the reservation, and lawfully maintained, are private property, and the owner thereof may at any time take the steps

12 The cases of Moore v. Smaw and Fremont v. Flower, 17 Cal., 199; 12 Mor. Min. Rep., 418, contain an interesting history of the subject of private land grants and state the law as it was prior to the legislation above mentioned.

13 Fort Maginnis Case, 1 L. D., 552 (Op. Atty. Gen.).

necessary to secure the fee-simple title. It must be remembered, however, that this only applies to a location which was at such time fully perfected, and even a location of this character, if not maintained, would be treated as abandoned, and the land covered thereby would become a part of the reservation.14

TIDE LANDS AND LANDS ON

STREAMS.

NAVIGABLE

Lands below high-water mark on the tide lands and on the banks of navigable streams belong to the States in which they are situated, and the United States will not recognize mining claims thereon.15 Whether lands are tide lands or whether streams are navigable, is a question of fact to be determined in each particular case.

The right to use such lands depends upon the local laws. A mining claim may extend across and cover the bed of a stream not navigable. If the claim is taken by legal subdivisions, the description thereof, according to the government survey,. will control. In such a case, if the stream is meandered (that is, if the subdivisional surveys extend only to the banks and not across the stream), the ordinary rules as to riparian rights apply.

GRANTS TO STATES.

The United States has granted to the several States sections 16 and 36 in each township for the common schools, excepting such as are mineral, and for the acreage lost in this way the State may select an equal quantity of unappropriated lands as indemnity.16 In lieu of a place granted of sections 16 and 36, the State of Nevada has been granted two million acres of public land.

These grants are adjusted in the following manner: The government surveyor, in running the lines of the

14 Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S., 279; Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U. S., 45; Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S., 348; Hammer v. Garfield M. & M. Co., 130 U. S., 291.

15 Knight v. U. S. Land Association, and cases therein cited, 142 U. S., 161; Frank Burns, 10 L. D., 365.

16 Keystone Lode & Mill Site v. Nevada, 15 L. D., .259.

subdivisional surveys, is required to describe in his field notes the character of the lands over which his lines are extended. This statement is usually to be found in the "General Description" at the end of the field notes of the survey of each township, and is called the "return" of the surveyor. The public lands are prima facie of the character noted by the surveyor, and the State may select lands in lieu of those sections of its grant returned as mineral, or may, if it so elects, disprove the return under the regulations of the Department. Although mineral lands are excepted from the grant, a time is fixed at which the State's title becomes absolute, if the land is not known at that time to be mineral in character: If the subdivisional survey was made prior to the admission of the State, this point of time is the date of the admission of the State to the Union; if such survey was made after the admission of the State, the grant to the State becomes absolute at the date of the approval of the survey if the lands were not then known to be mineral.

In case an application for patent for a mining claim is presented covering any lands within sections 16 or 36, returned as non-mineral, if an examination of the same di closes that the claim was located prior to the date when the State's right attached, if at all, the application is received and placed of record, and the proper State official notified and allowed a certain time to show cause why patent should not be issued on such mineral application.

Should the application disclose that the mining claim was located after the date when the grant became effective, if at all, the mineral claimant is required to make a prima facie ex parte showing that the land claimed by him was known to be mineral at or prior to the established date. Should such showing be made, a rule is laid upon the State to show cause as above noted, but should the mineral claimant fail to make out a prima facie ex parte case, his application is finally rejected.

In all cases where the State fails to appear and make objection after due notice, the application for mineral patent is passed in this particular; but if a showing is

17 Paragraphs 103 et seq., page 167.

made which raises the issue, a "hearing" or trial before the local land office is had to determine the question: Was the land known to be mineral in character at the date the grant to the State took effect, if at all?

GRANTS TO RAILROADS.

The United States has also granted to many railroad corporations immense quantities of land, in alternate sections on each side of its road, from five to forty miles in width, mineral lands, other than those valuable for coal and iron, being excepted.

The exception is effective as to all lands found to be mineral at any time prior to the date of patent, or certification.18

Of these granted alternate sections the companies make lists of selections, describing the tracts according to the government subdivisional surveys. These lists are filed in the local land office and forwarded to the General Land Office, where they are critically examined. A clear list is then made up of unappropriated lands not returned as mineral or alleged to be such, which list is transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior for patenting under the law.

Under the practice a list is prepared of all the lands returned, or claimed as mineral or alleged to be such, as well as all lands within six miles of mining claims, and notice of the selection of said lands is required to be published thirty days, after which testimony is submitted at the local land office as to the character thereof. Any person having claims, or who is familiar with the character of the lands published, is invited to appear and testify concerning the same.

Inasmuch as many mining claims are held under possessory title only, and there is no record thereof in the Land Department, claimants are at fault if they do not advise the Government of their claims. A brief letter addressed to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, giving the section, township and range, will be sufficient to prevent any final disposition of the land to a railroad company until the one alleging the mineral character of the land has an op

18 Barden v. N. P. R. R. Co., 154 U. S., 288 (citing and approving C. P. R. R. Co. v. Valentine, 11 L. D., 238). This is true as to all grants of like character.