Jefferson Mining District

"To provide Guards for their future livelihood"

MINING RIGHTS

Download and print out the Summary, above, & Nos. 1 to 5 below:

1. Grants of Lands to State or Corporations not to Include Minerals Lands, January. 30, 1865.

2. Possessory Actions for the Recovery of Mining Title, February 27, 1865.

3. CONGRESSIONAL MINERAL GRANT OF 1866 (H.R. 365)
    INCLUDES RIGHT OF THE HIGHWAY (Sec 8) AND RIGHT OF WATER (Sec 9).

4. CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF PLACERS (1870).

5. CONGRESSIONAL GRANT FOR ALL LOCATABLE MINERALS (1872).

6. MINING LAW IS FOUND CODIFIED IN TITLE 30 USC (Sec 21A to Sec 54), inclusively. For reference:

7. USC Title 30 Sec 22, "Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States."

8. USC Title 30 Sec 26, "The claimant has the exclusive right to possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of the locations" . Union Oil Co. of California v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 349 (1919); Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445; California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 575, 107 S.Ct. 1419, 1422, 94 L.Ed. 2d 577 (1987); Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1993). The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth.

9. "[T]he claim holder must prepare locational records and must expend at least $100 of labor on the claim each year, Id. Sec 28. If these requirements are met and the claim is thus perfected, its locator "shall have the exclusive right to possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations," Id. Sec 26, even as against the United States which nevertheless retains title to the land." Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Commission, 1984.

10. "The rule is established by innumerable decisions of this Court, and of state and lower federal courts, that, when the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession. The claim is property in the fullest sense of that term;" WILBUR, Secretary of the Interior, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. KRUSHNIC, 280 U.S. 306 (50 S.Ct. 103, 74 L.Ed. 445) 1930.

11. However, when rights have attached as a result of a valid location, the land becomes segregated from the public domain and the property of the locator; and the title to the land is held in trust for the claimant until patent. (Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U.S. 348,351; Dahl v. Raunheim, 132 U.S. 260, 262; Gillis v. Downey, 85 Fed. 483, 487).

12. "A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. A party is, therefore, always estopped by his own grant." Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810).

13. VALID mining claims are "private property" Freese v. United States, 639 F.2d 754, 757, 226 Ct.Cl. 252 cert. denied, 454 U.S. 827, 102 S.Ct. 119, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 370 F.Supp. 108, 124 (D.Colo. 1973).

14. Such an interest may be asserted against the United States as well as against third parties (see Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336 (1963); Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 50 (1885)) and may not be taken from the claimant by the United States without due compensation. See United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330 (1920); Licenses are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. [cited omitted]. But pedis claims are.

15. The Forest Service and BLM wrongly assert the Surface Resources Act, 1955, "amends" the Mining Law to condition Locatable Minerals property granted in 1866 to 1872. The Act did not.
Read: Minard Run Oil Company v. United States Forest Service, 2009.

16. Patenting, however, is not required, and an unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory interest. Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., Read: 371 U.S. 334, 335, 83 S.Ct. 379, 381, 9 L.Ed.2d 350 (1963); United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 86 (1985).

17. "but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent."." Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 1930, 50 S.Ct. 103, 280 U.S. 306, 74 L.Ed. 445.

This summary is no substitute for proper application and more thorough knowledge.