ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New rules for hunting meteorites
Clay Diggins
post Aug 17 2016, 05:18 PM
Post #16


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 17 2016, 03:25 PM) *
Good catch...I didn't see the expiration date on it.<br />

<br />

I'm not certain you're comparing apples to apples here. The <a href="http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=AZAZAA%20022947&amp;docClass=SER&amp;sid=ivtwl1ik.uus" target="_blank">patent issued to Standard Iron Company</a> was in 1903. In 1906 and again in 1909 Barringer and Tilghman presented their arguments to the Academy of Natural Sciences (<a href="http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php" target="_blank">link</a>), but the theory wasn't accepted until the 1960s when Shoemaker demonstrated the crater was similar in structure to nuclear weapons tests craters (presence of coesite: <a href="http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_6.php" target="_blank">link</a>). Barringer was estimating he could turn his $500k investment into a $250M profit by mining what he estimated to be 10M tons of iron from the meteorite. It would be hard to argue the patent was issued for meteorite specimens when it took the scientific community another 4 decades to accept the theory.

<a href="http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php" target="_blank">Source</a>

I can't find any comparable, modern meteorite cases, much less one where someone is looking to mine a meteorite impact for the intrinsic value of the meteorite material (i.e. smelt it down to sell as iron as Barringer intended) vs as a collectible specimen. I would argue, just like Barringer experienced, that anyone seeking to mine a meteorite impact for intrinsic material value would be even more hard pressed to pass the prudent man test much less the valuable mineral test. It's not until we consider the collector value of the meteorite samples that we start to broach that crossover you mention. This is what I interpret to be the crux of Gene's challenge: are collectors' specimens locatable minerals? It's an interesting question to ponder, particularly in the economic light in which Gene presents the question. For instance just a few weeks ago at an outing we were discussing the value of the goethite specimen Colin found, and the figures lobbed out had an $18k range.


You seem to imply that Barringer met resistance to his patent application because of the nature of the identity of the meteorite material? I've never read such an implication before, it certainly isn't to be found in your link.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the reaction to Barringer's presentation to the Academy of Natural Sciences. Barringer theorized that the meteor buried it's bulk deep below the crater surface and that the already commonly recognized ,meteorite materials around the site were just debris from the injection of this mass into the earth. His presentation was about the crater being caused by a meteorite and the coincident burial of a large meteorite mass. There was a lot of skepticism of his theory at the time and we know today that his theory about the creation of the crater was correct and his presumption of a consequent buried mass was indeed wrong.

What that has to do with the long before verified meteorite metals found at the site and their many years of mining and sale at high prices long before Barringer bought the deposit and patented it has been mischaracterized by those who don't understand that it wasn't the meteoric origin of the metal that was challenged it was the crater theory. Meteorites and their metallic compositions have been recognized and studied by mainstream science since 1805, a century before Barringer made his presentation in 1906.

The meteoric nature and source of the mined metal wasn't in question when Barringer received his mineral patents but the crater theory was. Lucky for Barringer he didn't apply to a patent for a crater or a meteorite but for the mineral value of his meteorite metals. I'm guessing that's because he was the most respected mining law expert of his time and he didn't confuse craters or meteorites with his right to claim the valuable minerals the meteorite was composed of. The fact that the country rock that surrounds the meteoric metals deposit is barren of any related minerals or mineralization of any kind was not hidden or unrecognized by the scientific or mining community. The identity and source of the deposit was not in question before the patent was issued, in fact it was the subject of many scientific papers of the time and had been extensively investigated by the Geological Society (USGS) and others.

It's interesting to note that Berringer's mineral patents have been challenged in several courts on just the basis you propose. The Barringer family have spent many years defending their mineral patents. The most recent was by an agency of the Federal Government. The famous meteorite collector Harvey Nininger also spent considerable time (decades) and a lot of OP money trying to invalidate the claims too. In every case the patents have been upheld by the courts despite challengers claims that meteorite deposits can not be issued patents. Clearly the issue has been adjudicated long after there was any question about the meteoric origin and nature of the discovered minerals. As far as the courts are concerned this theory that meteorite deposits can't be claimed under the mining acts is a losing argument.

QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 17 2016, 03:25 PM) *
<br />

My desire seems to be aligned with yours: that any future legal challenges as to whether meteorites constitute locatable minerals go the way of the claiming miner(s). I think solid arguments can be made, but I lack your confidence absent suitable case law. Similar arguments can be made for dinosaur bones, for instance...<br />

<br />

There is some case law on meteorites (<a href="https://casetext.com/case/people-of-st-of-cal-ex-rel-younger-v-mead" target="_blank">Old Woman Meteorite</a>, <a href="http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-cribbet/finding/goddard-v-winchell/" target="_blank">Goddard v Winchell</a>), but these don't deal with mining claims. <br />


I'm not sure what dinosaur bones or any other animal residues might have with locatable minerals?

Neither one of those cases you cite had anything to do with the subject of minerals discovered on public lands.

The Old Woman case was about the right of the Secretary of the Interior to bypass normal established administrative process in awarding study materials under the Antiquities Act. No issue was raised and no decision was made regarding meteorites, meteorite ownership, public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. The Supreme Court simply was carrying out their duty to review a challenge to an administrative decision under the Administrative Procedures Act. Although the decision was judicial it was strictly the final decision on a single administrative action and did not interpret or define anything in regards to meteorites, minerals or mining law.

The Antiquities Act which is most often cited in these meteorite discussions, including the Old Woman case, deals only with human artifacts:

QUOTE
Sec. 470bb. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) The term "archaeological resource" means any material
remains of past human life or activities which are of
archaeological interest


Rocks and minerals are not only outside of the purview of the Antiquities Act but they are specifically excluded from regulation in the Antiquities Act Savings clause.

Goddard v Winchell was a case about ownership of natural objects, including meteorites, found on private land. Once again not a case about meteorites found on public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. This decision (and many others) made it clear that meteorite ownership was to be treated just like any other natural object found on private land.

From the decision:
QUOTE
The Court found favor with the ancient rule "that whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil. The meteorite was deposited on the Plaintiff's land through natural causes, and became a fixed part of the earth at the time it was so deposited.

So meteorites found on the land are a part of the land. With no contrary decisions relating to public lands it would be a difficult argument that different rules apply there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Aug 17 2016, 05:32 PM
Post #17


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



It is a simple fact that the mining law only makes one distinction in the origin of valuable mineral deposits. That is clearly the distinction between valuable mineral found in place (represented by lode claims) or valuable mineral detached and found in float (represented by placer claims). There are no other source distinction under the mining law.

It makes perfect sense to me that Barringer would make placer claims on his found mineral deposit. Considering the source of the minerals I don't know how he could justify a lode claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Aug 17 2016, 07:12 PM
Post #18


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



IMO your view that there is a simple distinction between placer and lode is myopic. There are several examples that don't fit conveniently in those two bins. For example, the Act of August 4, 1892 included building stone as a locatable mineral under the, "provisions governing placer mining claims". The same goes for the Act of February 11, 1897 for petroleum and other mineral oils. However, uranium in the form of roll-front deposits in sandstone was always staked as lode claims.

I don't know if you are familiar with Harvey Gardner's book, "Mining Among the Clouds: The Mosquito Range and the Origins of Colorado's Silver Boom", 2002. He discusses three iterations of staking claims on Mt. Bross, where lead-silver carbonate ore occurs in large pods within the Leadville Limestone formation. The upward movement of acidic hydrothermal fluids was stopped by the Lincoln Porphyry sill above the Leadville. Miners originally staked the area as lode claims, but the Land Office balked because the pods of carbonate ore were NOT veins. The miners hurriedly restaked the claims as placers (an example placer plat is in the thread on placer mining laws). Two placer claims were patented and then the Land Office spit the third placer patent application back and rescinded the patents for the first 2 placer claims. The reasoning, you cannot have a placer claim at 13,000 feet. The miners then restaked the area again as lode claims and patents were issued.

I say this because it is not clear to me whether the nickel-rich iron deposits within the crater should be treated as in situ lode deposits or surficial deposits. The ejecta outside the crater seem best staked as placers. I don't believe that anyone would argue that the mineral deposits of the Sudbury area in Canada would most likely have been staked as lode claims if the deposit was in the western US. Anyway, just a little omphaloskeptic musing on my part. The fact remains, they were staked and patented as placer deposits and successfully defended in court.

ETA: Here's a link to the Wiki article on the Sudbury Basin
QUOTE
The Sudbury Basin, also known as Sudbury Structure or the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive, is a major geological structure in Ontario, Canada. It is the second-largest known impact crater or astrobleme on Earth, as well as one of the oldest.[1]


Back to another topic I asked about, what are your thoughts in regard to mineral specimens being or not being locatable minerals under the current laws and regulations, Clay Diggins?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Aug 17 2016, 08:18 PM
Post #19


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Aug 17 2016, 07:12 PM) *
IMO your view that there is a simple distinction between placer and lode is myopic. There are several examples that don't fit conveniently in those two bins. For example, the Act of August 4, 1892 included building stone as a locatable mineral under the, "provisions governing placer mining claims". The same goes for the Act of February 11, 1897 for petroleum and other mineral oils. However, uranium in the form of roll-front deposits in sandstone was always staked as lode claims.

I don't know if you are familiar with Harvey Gardner's book, "Mining Among the Clouds: The Mosquito Range and the Origins of Colorado's Silver Boom", 2002. He discusses three iterations of staking claims on Mt. Bross, where lead-silver carbonate ore occurs in large pods within the Leadville Limestone formation. The upward movement of acidic hydrothermal fluids was stopped by the Lincoln Porphyry sill above the Leadville. Miners originally staked the area as lode claims, but the Land Office balked because the pods of carbonate ore were NOT veins. The miners hurriedly restaked the claims as placers (an example placer plat is in the thread on placer mining laws). Two placer claims were patented and then the Land Office spit the third placer patent application back and rescinded the patents for the first 2 placer claims. The reasoning, you cannot have a placer claim at 13,000 feet. The miners then restaked the area again as lode claims and patents were issued.

I say this because it is not clear to me whether the nickel-rich iron deposits within the crater should be treated as in situ lode deposits or surficial deposits. The ejecta outside the crater seem best staked as placers. I don't believe that anyone would argue that the mineral deposits of the Sudbury area in Canada would most likely have been staked as lode claims if the deposit was in the western US. Anyway, just a little omphaloskeptic musing on my part. The fact remains, they were staked and patented as placer deposits and successfully defended in court.

ETA: Here's a link to the Wiki article on the Sudbury Basin


Back to another topic I asked about, what are your thoughts in regard to mineral specimens being or not being locatable minerals under the current laws and regulations, Clay Diggins?


The Land Office and IBLA often display split personalities in their opinions. Typically it's pretty easy to get the IBLA to reverse itself several times in a row but it's often an exercise in patience. It's a perverse side of the industry, as you know. I'm sure we could swap many stories. Nevertheless the law still only considers two types of deposits locatable. There is no law governing the validity of the source of the original mineable metals in relation to their locatability under the mining laws regardless as to whether they are claimed as placer or lode. There is no precedent to exclude meteorite metal deposits if they prove to be valuable mineral discoveries under the mining laws.

I think you must have missed the point about Berringer's presentation - there was no buried meteorite mass. Berringer, a very wealthy man, nearly bankrupted in his efforts to prove there was a buried metal mass below the crater. That was after he obtained patent based on his surface discoveries that were selling for $1,300 a ton at the time of his purchase. I have inspected the property by invitation and have a few of the found meteorite masses from there. All those masses were either found exposed on the surface near the crater (as large as 25 tons) or are found within a few inches of the surface. The slightly buried pieces are easily spotted by eye due to surface alteration rings immediate to the meteorite fragment. There is nothing of value there associated with the mineralogy of the country rock.

There are several exceptions in the mining laws to metallic deposits. Ball clay, cinders, bentonite and certain pumice deposits come to mind. There are quite a few more. Curiously the most commonly mined valuable metal, calcium, is not considered locatable in it's common form but perlite is. Go figure.

I have never seen a reasonable specimen deposit that would qualify as a mining claim under the mining acts nor can I imagine how such a deposit would qualify. I've been surprised before so feel free to educate me.

Even with gem crystal deposits proving a discovery under the prudent man regime would be difficult. Size, quality and extent of the deposit would be tough to establish without extensive work and potentially a lot of damage to the deposit. Just establishing a market value would be an adventure and so variable as to endanger any long term price reliability. I'm sure there are claims that do qualify as I have some experience with jade mining but I would hesitate to invest too much time or money on such a slim and mercurial market.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Aug 17 2016, 11:33 PM
Post #20


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Aug 16 2016, 05:53 PM) *
I must admit that I am baffled at some of the 2012 comments in this thread. I've seen the same statements made in other threads. In particular the red text in this statement, "there isnt ANY BLM/FS land! its public domain land. and we have a Constitutional RIGHT to prospect/mine it". No where in the Constitution can there be found any mention of an individual's right to prospect or mine the Public Lands.

Prior to the Constitution, the Land Ordinance Act of 1785 was passed by the United States Congress of the Confederation in part to pay the Revolutionary War veterans with land in the Ohio Territory. The Constitution does authorize Congress to enact legislation to dispose of and/or manage the Public Lands.


I for one disagree with your statement in bold above.

I have my own copy of the 1789 Constitution and I'm pretty familiar with it. I do agree that there is no Constitutional right to prospect or mine. There are some other historical basis for believing that right is found in various statutes and common law but there is no such right spelled out in the Constitution.

Perhaps you too have a copy of the 1789 Constitution and could point out to us where it spells out anything about public land or the right to acquire or dispose of public land?

I'm not nitpicking here Gene. Even Thomas Jefferson the author of the first Land Ordinance and President at the time didn't believe the Louisiana Purchase (1803 - the first public land) was legal under the 1789 Constitution and proposed an amendment to the Constitution to allow the purchase.

Nothing in the Northwest Ordinance or the Land Ordinance Act of 1785 (both passed before the new Constitution was written) even pretends to allow the acquisition of public lands either - they don't even use the phrase. There was no such power in the original Constitution of 1777, the Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States, to allow public lands. I've never in all my years of study found pre existing law that would allow the purchase or disposal of public lands.

I'm not looking for a public land do over and I'm not suggesting that public lands are illegal but much like you I tend to be curious and a bit puzzled when I read that people believe something is in the Constitution that I just can't seem to find.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EMac
post Aug 18 2016, 10:26 AM
Post #21


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 25-July 14
From: Westminster, CO
Member No.: 117,949



QUOTE
You seem to imply that Barringer met resistance to his patent application because of the nature of the identity of the meteorite material? I've never read such an implication before, it certainly isn't to be found in your link.
If this is how folks interpret the statement, I missed my intent. My knowledge here is in its infancy, but I'm not aware of any resistance Barringer encountered obtaining the patent. I intended to point out that mining the meteorite for its intrinsic value, iron, proved to be unprofitable. I postulate future miners intending to mine a meteorite's intrinsic value, (iron, nickel, gold....whatever) would be met with similar difficulties. These folks would be hard-pressed passing the prudent man test much less the economic ones.

QUOTE
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the reaction to Barringer's presentation to the Academy of Natural Sciences. Barringer theorized that the meteor buried it's bulk deep below the crater surface and that the already commonly recognized ,meteorite materials around the site were just debris from the injection of this mass into the earth. His presentation was about the crater being caused by a meteorite and the coincident burial of a large meteorite mass. There was a lot of skepticism of his theory at the time and we know today that his theory about the creation of the crater was correct and his presumption of a consequent buried mass was indeed wrong.

What that has to do with the long before verified meteorite metals found at the site and their many years of mining and sale at high prices long before Barringer bought the deposit and patented it has been mischaracterized by those who don't understand that it wasn't the meteoric origin of the metal that was challenged it was the crater theory. Meteorites and their metallic compositions have been recognized and studied by mainstream science since 1805, a century before Barringer made his presentation in 1906.

The meteoric nature and source of the mined metal wasn't in question when Barringer received his mineral patents but the crater theory was. Lucky for Barringer he didn't apply to a patent for a crater or a meteorite but for the mineral value of his meteorite metals. I'm guessing that's because he was the most respected mining law expert of his time and he didn't confuse craters or meteorites with his right to claim the valuable minerals the meteorite was composed of. The fact that the country rock that surrounds the meteoric metals deposit is barren of any related minerals or mineralization of any kind was not hidden or unrecognized by the scientific or mining community. The identity and source of the deposit was not in question before the patent was issued, in fact it was the subject of many scientific papers of the time and had been extensively investigated by the Geological Society (USGS) and others.

It's interesting to note that Berringer's mineral patents have been challenged in several courts on just the basis you propose. The Barringer family have spent many years defending their mineral patents. The most recent was by an agency of the Federal Government. The famous meteorite collector Harvey Nininger also spent considerable time (decades) and a lot of OP money trying to invalidate the claims too. In every case the patents have been upheld by the courts despite challengers claims that meteorite deposits can not be issued patents. Clearly the issue has been adjudicated long after there was any question about the meteoric origin and nature of the discovered minerals. As far as the courts are concerned this theory that meteorite deposits can't be claimed under the mining acts is a losing argument.
Do you have source material you can point me to for this history? I'm still learning the history, but impressions I've gotten were the scientific community thought the crater was a volcano, and the meteorites found there were coincidental.

QUOTE
I'm not sure what dinosaur bones or any other animal residues might have with locatable minerals?
Fossilized dinosaur bones are mineralized, yet they do not fall into the category of locatable minerals. I only intended to point out that it's probably not as simple as "they're minerals...we can mine 'em" since we know of at least one special category based upon the minerals' origins.

QUOTE
Neither one of those cases you cite had anything to do with the subject of minerals discovered on public lands.

The Old Woman case was about the right of the Secretary of the Interior to bypass normal established administrative process in awarding study materials under the Antiquities Act. No issue was raised and no decision was made regarding meteorites, meteorite ownership, public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. The Supreme Court simply was carrying out their duty to review a challenge to an administrative decision under the Administrative Procedures Act. Although the decision was judicial it was strictly the final decision on a single administrative action and did not interpret or define anything in regards to meteorites, minerals or mining law. The Antiquities Act which is most often cited in these meteorite discussions, including the Old Woman case, deals only with human artifacts:


QUOTE
Sec. 470bb. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) The term "archaeological resource" means any material
remains of past human life or activities which are of
archaeological interest


Rocks and minerals are not only outside of the purview of the Antiquities Act but they are specifically excluded from regulation in the Antiquities Act Savings clause.

Goddard v Winchell was a case about ownership of natural objects, including meteorites, found on private land. Once again not a case about meteorites found on public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. This decision (and many others) made it clear that meteorite ownership was to be treated just like any other natural object found on private land.
While the Old Woman Meteorite was found on public lands, I agree with you. I offered them up as interesting reading I found, but also said they don't deal with mining claims.

QUOTE
So meteorites found on the land are a part of the land. With no contrary decisions relating to public lands it would be a difficult argument that different rules apply there.
Again, I don't think it's this simple: the 2012 BLM memo tells me this. If one lands in your backyard, there is precedent that the meteorite is yours. If the meteorite lands on unclaimed, public land, there is precedent. I'm still looking for any precedents dealing with claiming meteorite impact sites, or what if the meteorite falls on a current claim of any variety. My position is there would be an expensive argument laid out in court, and we'll get an answer eventually therefrom.


--------------------
Lifetime Member
opera non verba

"All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it's impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer." ~Niccolò Machiavelli

Ref Code:

EM448
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EMac
post Aug 18 2016, 11:05 AM
Post #22


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 25-July 14
From: Westminster, CO
Member No.: 117,949



QUOTE
I think you must have missed the point about Berringer's presentation - there was no buried meteorite mass. Berringer, a very wealthy man, nearly bankrupted in his efforts to prove there was a buried metal mass below the crater. That was after he obtained patent based on his surface discoveries that were selling for $1,300 a ton at the time of his purchase. I have inspected the property by invitation and have a few of the found meteorite masses from there. All those masses were either found exposed on the surface near the crater (as large as 25 tons) or are found within a few inches of the surface. The slightly buried pieces are easily spotted by eye due to surface alteration rings immediate to the meteorite fragment. There is nothing of value there associated with the mineralogy of the country rock.
Do you have source material for this as well? I'm curious what he was selling for $1300 a ton when hot rolled steel was selling for less than $1.60 per 100 pounds (quick math says that's less than $32 a ton). Wikipedia (granted, not exactly a perfect source) says that variety of iron ore was selling for $125/ton. Still a far cry from $1300, so my interest is piqued.


I haven't read them, so I'm also curious about the various suits filed against family. I'll poke around for those, but if you have links to them already, I thank you in advance!

This piece seems similar to the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment...minus the quantum positioning stuff.
When Barringer presented the papers in 1906 and 1909, he thought there was a mass buried. In 1928 (19 years after his presentation), he still thought a mass was present, and he was gathering investors to mine what he still thought was millions of tons of iron. It wasn't until Moulton's estimates that the meteorite was much smaller (300k tons) and was likely vaporized, that he stopped mining operations. So for 25 years, the impression (at least from Barringer) was there was a massive deposit of iron to be mined. This, to me, renders the lack of clarity about in situ vs surficial interesting. From what I've read (and I'm hoping you have material to help refine this for me), the scientific community thought it was a volcano and meteorite pieces were coincidental. It would stand to reason then that the community assumed Barringer intended to mine a volcano which suggests to me the claim type should have been a lode claim when he filed placer claims. Interesting indeed.

Edited for grammar.


--------------------
Lifetime Member
opera non verba

"All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it's impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer." ~Niccolò Machiavelli

Ref Code:

EM448
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Aug 18 2016, 04:57 PM
Post #23


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 18 2016, 12:33 AM) *
I for one disagree with your statement in bold above.

I have my own copy of the 1789 Constitution and I'm pretty familiar with it. I do agree that there is no Constitutional right to prospect or mine. There are some other historical basis for believing that right is found in various statutes and common law but there is no such right spelled out in the Constitution.

Perhaps you too have a copy of the 1789 Constitution and could point out to us where it spells out anything about public land or the right to acquire or dispose of public land?

I'm not nitpicking here Gene. Even Thomas Jefferson the author of the first Land Ordinance and President at the time didn't believe the Louisiana Purchase (1803 - the first public land) was legal under the 1789 Constitution and proposed an amendment to the Constitution to allow the purchase.

Nothing in the Northwest Ordinance or the Land Ordinance Act of 1785 (both passed before the new Constitution was written) even pretends to allow the acquisition of public lands either - they don't even use the phrase. There was no such power in the original Constitution of 1777, the Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States, to allow public lands. I've never in all my years of study found pre existing law that would allow the purchase or disposal of public lands.

I'm not looking for a public land do over and I'm not suggesting that public lands are illegal but much like you I tend to be curious and a bit puzzled when I read that people believe something is in the Constitution that I just can't seem to find.

Clay Diggins,

Short answer: The Property Clause in Art. IV, § 3, Cl. 2 and subsequent SCOTUS decisions interpreting the meaning of the Property Clause (See Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1976) for a unanimous SCOTUS interpretation of the Property Clause that supports my impression that Congress has authority under the Constitution to dispose of the Public Lands.

QUOTE
Held: As applied to this case, the Act is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause of the Constitution, which provides that

"Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

(a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees' narrow reading that the provision

Page 426 U. S. 530

grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for "[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations," United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 310 U. S. 29, and Congress' complete authority over the public lands includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there. Pp. 426 U. S. 536-541.

(b) In arguing that the Act encroaches upon state sovereignty and that Congress can obtain exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the public lands in a State only by state consent (absent which it may not act contrary to state law), appellees have confused Congress' derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, with Congress' powers under the Property Clause. Federal legislation under that Clause necessarily, under the Supremacy Clause, overrides conflicting state laws. And here, though the Act does not establish exclusive federal jurisdiction over the public lands in New Mexico, it overrides the New Mexico Estray Law insofar as that statute attempts to regulate federally protected animals. Pp. 426 U. S. 541-546.

© The question of the Act's permissible reach under the Property Clause over private lands to protect wild free-roaming horses and burros that have strayed from public land need not be, and is not, decided in the context of this case. Pp. 426 U. S. 546-547.

406 F.Supp. 1237, reversed and remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.


Long answer: The mere fact that the term "Public Lands" cannot be found in a textual search of the U.S. Constitution is not necessarily meaningful. If you care to follow me out in the weeds, here's my take on Congressional authority under the U.S. Constitution to dispose of and/or manage the Public Lands.

Let's start back with the stalemate in ratifying the Articles of Confederation. Maryland held out until February 2, 1781 to ratify the Articles of Confederation. It became effective on March 1, 1781. Maryland held out until states like New York, Massachusetts, and esp. Virginia ceded their claims to the "western territory" to the Union (some may refer to these lands as Public Lands of the newly formed United States).

Now to the manner and disposal of these newly acquired lands. The Continental Congress in December 1783 instructed a committee headed by Thomas Jefferson to prepare a report on dispositions of the public lands and the formation of government to be formed in the territories. The bulk of the report was presented on March 1, 1784 and contained three recommendations. The first subdivided the states ceded territories into territories bounded north and south by two degrees latitude, commencing at N 31°. The east-west boundaries were the Mississippi River, the meridian of the lowest point of the rapids of the Ohio River, and the meridian of the mouth of the Great Kanhaway (Kanawha River, a tributary to the Ohio River).

The second recommendation was to create a rectangular method of dividing the land into hundreds, 10 geographic miles square. These hundreds were to be divided into blocks of one geographic mile (6086.4 ft.) square each and consisting of 1,000 reformed acres (850.4 acres). The third recommendation was regarding criteria on how to form the territorial governments. The committee's report was approved by Congress in April 1784.

Jefferson proposed this rectangular form of land division because of his interest in ridding the nation of its old colonial ways and replacing them with decimal systems, esp. with regard to our monetary and land systems. As we all know, this proposal was not adopted in large part because Jefferson went to France in March 1785 and was not present for the final passage of the Act. Another committee under the leadership of William Grayson abandoned Jefferson's decimal land system in favor of the one we know today. The Land Ordinance Act was passed on May 20, 1785. A minor change was enacted in 1786 regarding following true meridians and in 1787 the rectangular western territories proposed by Jefferson were changed so that the prospective western states would be no less than three and no more than five. What purpose, other than land disposal was served by surveying these pubic lands?

The Union held in trust, owned, administered (pick one) the public lands for over six and a half years before the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The Congress of the United States under the Constitution enacted the Ordinance of 1796, Act of May 10, 1800 and Act of February 11, 1805 to further refine the rectangular survey system. This system was unique in another way. The rectangular surveys were conducted prior to disposal. This helped to check the rampant land speculation that characterized the late 1780s and early 1790s. Our rectangular survey system has changed little since 1805 and serves as an example of the ingenuity and foresight of our forefathers to see the common man as a land owner.

Last Point: I too have read that Thomas Jefferson was skeptical that the United States government had authority under the Constitution to purchase land. That may be one of the reasons that the U.S. signed a treaty with France as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Gadsden Purchase from Mexico (treaty signed on December 30, 1853) and the Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire (treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1867) were also acquired under the authority of treaties.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Aug 18 2016, 05:09 PM
Post #24


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 17 2016, 09:18 PM) *
The Land Office and IBLA often display split personalities in their opinions. Typically it's pretty easy to get the IBLA to reverse itself several times in a row but it's often an exercise in patience. It's a perverse side of the industry, as you know.

My experience is far different from yours, esp. your notion of perversion in the industry.

Many years ago a friend who is a BLM Cadastral Surveyor told me, "Gene, you need to understand that with regard to the BLM, it's a process". I was balking at some of the training materials that I was going through before obtaining my appointment as a Certified Federal Surveyor. The training takes about 220 hours to complete and the trainee must pass an examination prior to certification. Part of my training included analysis of many IBLA cases related to land boundaries. Between those and others that I have reviewed I find that the IBLA review of a protest first and foremost checks to see if the BLM process has been followed. If the administrative law judge concludes that the BLM followed all pertinent laws, regulations, Solicitor's opinions, Dept. of Interior circulars and instructions then they will rule in favor of the BLM.

To be clear, my statement above is regarding surveying and land boundary disputes that are ruled on by the IBLA. I am not as interested in IBLA cases that concern the validity of unpatented mining claims. Perhaps your assessment of those type of cases is correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EMac
post Sep 7 2016, 10:40 AM
Post #25


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 25-July 14
From: Westminster, CO
Member No.: 117,949



QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Aug 16 2016, 06:53 PM) *
My reason for emphasizing this is that the United States holds its ownership of the Public Lands in trust for "We the People". However, that doesn't mean that I get to go and arbitrarily occupy a portion of the Public Lands and call it mine. The nitwits that occupied Malheur Wildlife Refuge last winter are now facing the consequences of their misunderstanding of this principle.


Trial Opens eating-popcorn-03.gif


--------------------
Lifetime Member
opera non verba

"All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it's impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer." ~Niccolò Machiavelli

Ref Code:

EM448
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Sep 26 2016, 11:53 PM
Post #26


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 18 2016, 11:05 AM) *
Do you have source material for this as well? I'm curious what he was selling for $1300 a ton when hot rolled steel was selling for less than $1.60 per 100 pounds (quick math says that's less than $32 a ton). Wikipedia (granted, not exactly a perfect source) says that variety of iron ore was selling for $125/ton. Still a far cry from $1300, so my interest is piqued.

Characterizing the Canyon Diablo meteorite deposits as having an iron value is akin to valuing a nice gold nugget as being valued by it's quartz content. Even classifying the meteorite material as nickeliferous would be an understatement.

While the best Nickel deposits in the world range as high as 1.2% Nickel in the iron mined the Canyon Diablo meteorites are 8% Nickel, 91 - 92 % iron with about 1/2 to 3/4 ounce platinum and iridium per ton of iron. This is truly extraordinary unoxidizable natural metal alloy. The fact that it's the largest deposit of metal of this quality found in modern times made it very desirable. This is Iron alloyed with Nickel and Platinum group metals. If you were to add carbon to the Canyon Diablo siderite material you would get a crumbling mess - not steel.

The deposit was certified as meteoric in June 1891 by Dr. A.E. Foote of Philidelphia. Dr. Foote was the most respected mineralogist of the time and he had a special interest in meteorites. When he heard of the Canyon Diablo material qualities from the smelter he asked for a raw sample. This was the period in which the Canyon Diablo material was being heavily mined and was reported to be selling for upwards of $1,300 a ton.

The siderite material from Canyon Diablo was well known and a hot subject well before Barringer's involvement. Here's another point of view from the period from Professor Fairchild.

The meteorite deposit was first discovered by English speaking Europeans in 1871. I suspect from my study that it was commonly known material well before then. Barringer did not discover the deposit. In fact he didn't even visit the area until after he bought the working mines there in 1903. Barringer was wealthy and well known both as the owner of the very rich Tombstone Pearce mine silver strike and as the United States' most respected mining lawyer. His book "The law of mines and mining in the United States" is by far the best seller in it's genre with constant reprints since it's introduction in 1901. You can buy a modern printing (2015) from Arkose press or you can download the entire book for free from several sources - it's out of copyright.

QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 18 2016, 11:05 AM) *
This piece seems similar to the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment...minus the quantum positioning stuff.
When Barringer presented the papers in 1906 and 1909, he thought there was a mass buried. In 1928 (19 years after his presentation), he still thought a mass was present, and he was gathering investors to mine what he still thought was millions of tons of iron. It wasn't until Moulton's estimates that the meteorite was much smaller (300k tons) and was likely vaporized, that he stopped mining operations. So for 25 years, the impression (at least from Barringer) was there was a massive deposit of iron to be mined. This, to me, renders the lack of clarity about in situ vs surficial interesting. From what I've read (and I'm hoping you have material to help refine this for me), the scientific community thought it was a volcano and meteorite pieces were coincidental. It would stand to reason then that the community assumed Barringer intended to mine a volcano which suggests to me the claim type should have been a lode claim when he filed placer claims. Interesting indeed.

Edited for grammar.


There are some references to the possibility of gas explosions creating the crater. Volcano would be a big stretch of the facts though. The entire site area is composed of the fine bedded "Supai" formation limestone/sandstone composing the Central Arizona segment of the Colorado Plateau - there isn't any evidence of volcanics or any ore deposits for many miles. The Supai material is very uniform with no mineral inclusions of commercial value - it's sandstone. There are no other historical mines of any type for nearly a hundred miles.

A better view of what the scientific community thought of the crater in 1905 and it's relationship to meteorites can be found in the President's public release describing Barringer's presentation to the Academy of Natural Science in 1905:
QUOTE
Dixon S.G. (1905.) Coon Mountains and its Crater. President's statement. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia,
December, 5.

On December 5, 1905, at a session of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, USA, its president Mr. S. G. Dixon has announced that two members of the Academy, D. M. Barringer and B. C. Tilghman made a "...discovery that the crater of Coon Mountain or Coon Butte... is an impact crater and not a crater produced by a steam explosion, as has been supposed since the examination made of it by members of the United States Geological Survey. They have proved, " he continued, " that the large crater and elevation known as Coon Mountain is the result of a collision with the Earth of a very large meteorite or possibly of a small asteroid, fragments of which are well known to the scientific world by name of the Canyon Diablo siderites... Mr. Barringer and Mr. Tilghman have presented to the Academy for publication two comprehensive papers in which they set forth in full their reasons for the above statements "


Barringer himself knew that there were no siderites found in the crater. He was obviously fascinated by the possibilities but he knew there was no hard evidence for his theory. The fact that he poured most of his considerable fortune into investigating his theory tends to draw attention away from the siderites and their location distributed away from the rim of the crater. Here is a map of the location of the known meteorite material from 1908, notice that the crater is barren of meteorite material:

Attached Image


That map is probably the best visual demonstration of why it was a placer deposit you will find short of seeing the deposit yourself. There is still a lot of meteorite material on and in the near surface of the crater area. There was never any "source" rock in place or valuable deposit found at depth. Berringer himself believed his envisioned mass of material would not be found as deep as 300 feet. It was and is without a doubt a loose surface deposit.

Historically the Canyon Diablo siderites were never in question. They were early on recognized as high Nickel/Iron siderites. The controversy revolved around whether the crater was caused by the meteorite or the meteorite deposit was coincidental.

The mines and subsequent mineral patents were based on the commercial value of the meteorite deposit. Besides the Nickel/Iron/Pt there was a valuable trade in the Moissanite "diamonds" first discovered there as well as the collectable value of the siderites. No mining claim or patent could ever succeed based on a geographic shape - even one formed by an extraterrestrial object.

There is a lot published on this subject. You might find a copy of Coon Mountain Controversies, by W.G.Hoyt 1987, 442pp interesting. There is a free copy of his son's recollection of the prospecting operations. Daniel Moureau Barringer and His Crater Brandon Barringer 1964 published by the Meteoritical Society. Both of these writings as well as many more available from the period show that the nature of the meteorite material or it's composition and value were never in question. The only controversy was about the origins of the crater.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EMac
post Sep 27 2016, 11:00 AM
Post #27


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 25-July 14
From: Westminster, CO
Member No.: 117,949



Where are you seeing the $1300 per ton figure? That's the question I had. The rest, I generally agree with; the point being they weren't selling the material for its aesthetic or collector value, but rather as a commodity.

In the link you provided, Brandon Barringer states that the decade following 1909 that his dad was looking for investors to the tune of $500M that rose to $1B based off nickel/platinoid values rising from $50-100 a ton (bottom of pg 187). That's a huge delta from $1300/ton, and I'm trying to reconcile those figures.

Around placer vs lode, I think B. Barringer's comment is interesting (Pg 186 "For safety's sake, lode claims were filed, but not used") as it pertains to our other discussions of lode vs placers and which is appropriate.

Edited punctuation and fixed D. Barringer to be B. Barringer.


--------------------
Lifetime Member
opera non verba

"All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it's impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer." ~Niccolò Machiavelli

Ref Code:

EM448
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Sep 27 2016, 08:51 PM
Post #28


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



QUOTE (EMac @ Sep 27 2016, 11:00 AM) *
Where are you seeing the $1300 per ton figure? That's the question I had. The rest, I generally agree with; the point being they weren't selling the material for its aesthetic or collector value, but rather as a commodity.

In the link you provided, Brandon Barringer states that the decade following 1909 that his dad was looking for investors to the tune of $500M that rose to $1B based off nickel/platinoid values rising from $50-100 a ton (bottom of pg 187). That's a huge delta from $1300/ton, and I'm trying to reconcile those figures.

Around placer vs lode, I think B. Barringer's comment is interesting (Pg 186 "For safety's sake, lode claims were filed, but not used") as it pertains to our other discussions of lode vs placers and which is appropriate.

Edited punctuation and fixed D. Barringer to be B. Barringer.

I'll have to dig around more to find the $1,300 documentation. It was partially what attracted the interest of Dr. Foote in 1891. Being in the business such valuable material would have been on his radar. He was tipped off by one of the workers at the smelter Volz was sending his shipments to. The rail station at Canyon Diablo was finished in 1886 and Volz took advantage of the cheap transportation to send the meteorite material back to the smelter in Pennsylvania(?) as I recall. Volz became the richest man in Northern Arizona and became famous for the free and open to the public two day party he threw once a year.

I think the $1300 figure may have been in Coon Mountain Controversies or one of Hoyt's other works. If you have a real interest the Lowell Observatory has Mr. Hoyt's many studies in it's collection. Warning: Mr Hoyt really loved the details and his writing style is a bit hard to read for many. I have a lot of material on this particular subject, including Hoyt's, so digging through is a bit of a chore.

Hundreds of the siderites from Canyon Diablo were sent to collectors, museums as well as MIT and other universities for testing. Small specimens were sold by Dr. Foote and can still be found today in the collection boxes he sold at the time. Dr Foote died in 1895 before Barringer was told about the crater in 1901. Barringer himself made the following statement:
QUOTE
Hundreds of such pieces had been shipped from the region in the vicinity of the crater to museums all over the world before we secured possession of the property.

There was a huge public interest in the siderites long before Barringer became involved. They were highly desired by collectors along with the "diamonds" found there. Money was being made long before Barringer became involved.

As for the note about locating lodes over the placers - the 1872 Mining Act makes it clear that lodes discovered within a placer have to be located, claimed, declared and paid for along with the placer before applying for a patent or the lode will be excluded from the placer patent (Section 11).
Barringer invited many geologists, miners and scientists to explore the deposit and being invitees they each had the right to locate a lode should they discover one during their exploration. Barringer would have been remiss and a pretty poor mining lawyer if he had left that possibility open. Clearly he considered the deposit to be a placer. Clearly he was the leading expert on the differences between lode and placer claims. Clearly he didn't want to spend his time and money defending spurious claims while proceeding through the patent process. The lode overclaims were for "safety's sake" just as Brandon Barringer wrote.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Oct 1 2016, 09:24 PM
Post #29


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



Clay,

I don't know the basis for your declaration that D.M. Barringer was the pre-eminent mining attorney in the U.S. Yes, he wrote a book with John Stokes Adams on the law of mines, but he certainly wasn't the first, that being Gregory Yale in 1867 that mainly dealt with the 1866 mining law and early California mining law. Period to Barringer and Adams were Curtis Lindley (California attorney) who published three editions from 1897 through 1914. The third edition is in three volumes. He is the one most commonly cited that I'm familiar with. Wilson Snyder published his treatise in 1902 (Utah). In the 1870s and 1880s there were Blanchard and Weeks, W.P. Wade and D.K. Sickels.

As for Colorado, the 15 editions of horn books on mining rights by R.S. Morrison are excellent how-to books for miners. He also published a mining law digest and 22 volumes of court cases related to mining law in his "Mining Reporter" series. Others published less expansivie texts in the 1900s; those being Charles Shamel (mining and geological law), Theodore Martin, Herbert McFarren, G.W. Miller, A.H. Ricketts and George Costigan. As for general how-to books, Henry N. Copp was a prolific writer. He was a former clerk with the GLO in D.C. and set up an office around the corner. He grabbed every Commissioner's decision, circular, instruction, etc. that came out of the Land Office and placed the information in a monthly, then bi-weekly subscription publication called "Copp's Land Owner". He wrote several books for miners, prospectors, settlers, etc. each with multiple editions.

Mr. Barringer was a geologist (also called himself a mining engineer) and attorney. The fact that he staked Meteor Crater as both placers and lodes indicates to me a belt and suspenders approach. While he was certainly able to present his opinion to the General Land Office as to whether "locatable minerals" from meteor impacts should be regarded as placer deposits over lodes, that didn't mean that the GLO had to agree with him. In the end, it didn't matter what Barringer thought, it is what the Land Office regarded them as being. I'm sure he wanted to avoid having his claims ruled as void which is why he went to the extra expense of staking the area as both lodes and placers.

One would think that obtaining a patent is the end of the story. Not necessarily so. In the early 1870s the east side of Mt. Bross was staked as lode claims. When the Land Office found out that the lead-silver carbonate ores were not in veins they forced the miners to restake them as placers. The Land Office classified them as "amygdaloidal bands" and equivalent to the German Fahlbands. Two placer claims were patented. When the third placer was being reviewed prior to issuance of a patent, the Land Office reversed their prior decision and refused to issue a patent because the placer was above 13,500 ft. The other two placer patents were rescinded and the miners scrambled to restake the area again as lodes. The area has some very oddly shaped lode claims in the vicinity of the Dolly Varden Mine. One lode claim has a single end line. The two side lines come to a point at the other end. The Land Office in 1878 said that was fine as long as the lode went through the vertex. The Compromise Lode looks like an eyebrow. Many of the lode claims do not have parallel end lines. Lode claims in the vicinity of the Moose mine look like paper clips. This is all because there are no veins. The deposit is contained within the Leadville Limestone as irregular shaped and oriented "spuds". Harvey Gardner, a retired historian at CU wrote a very interesting book entitled, "Mining among the Clouds: The Mosquito Range and the Origins of Colorado's Silver Boom", 2002. It is a paperback available at Amazon for $14.95. The above story is covered in detail in Mr. Gardner's book. He did some good research and obtained the Land Entry Case files for many of the claims on Bross from the National Archives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Oct 2 2016, 12:21 PM
Post #30


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Oct 1 2016, 09:24 PM) *
Clay,

I don't know the basis for your declaration that D.M. Barringer was the pre-eminent mining attorney in the U.S. Yes, he wrote a book with John Stokes Adams on the law of mines, but he certainly wasn't the first, that being Gregory Yale in 1867 that mainly dealt with the 1866 mining law and early California mining law. Period to Barringer and Adams were Curtis Lindley (California attorney) who published three editions from 1897 through 1914. The third edition is in three volumes. He is the one most commonly cited that I'm familiar with. Wilson Snyder published his treatise in 1902 (Utah). In the 1870s and 1880s there were Blanchard and Weeks, W.P. Wade and D.K. Sickels.

As for Colorado, the 15 editions of horn books on mining rights by R.S. Morrison are excellent how-to books for miners. He also published a mining law digest and 22 volumes of court cases related to mining law in his "Mining Reporter" series. Others published less expansivie texts in the 1900s; those being Charles Shamel (mining and geological law), Theodore Martin, Herbert McFarren, G.W. Miller, A.H. Ricketts and George Costigan. As for general how-to books, Henry N. Copp was a prolific writer. He was a former clerk with the GLO in D.C. and set up an office around the corner. He grabbed every Commissioner's decision, circular, instruction, etc. that came out of the Land Office and placed the information in a monthly, then bi-weekly subscription publication called "Copp's Land Owner". He wrote several books for miners, prospectors, settlers, etc. each with multiple editions.

Mr. Barringer was a geologist (also called himself a mining engineer) and attorney. The fact that he staked Meteor Crater as both placers and lodes indicates to me a belt and suspenders approach. While he was certainly able to present his opinion to the General Land Office as to whether "locatable minerals" from meteor impacts should be regarded as placer deposits over lodes, that didn't mean that the GLO had to agree with him. In the end, it didn't matter what Barringer thought, it is what the Land Office regarded them as being. I'm sure he wanted to avoid having his claims ruled as void which is why he went to the extra expense of staking the area as both lodes and placers.

One would think that obtaining a patent is the end of the story. Not necessarily so. In the early 1870s the east side of Mt. Bross was staked as lode claims. When the Land Office found out that the lead-silver carbonate ores were not in veins they forced the miners to restake them as placers. The Land Office classified them as "amygdaloidal bands" and equivalent to the German Fahlbands. Two placer claims were patented. When the third placer was being reviewed prior to issuance of a patent, the Land Office reversed their prior decision and refused to issue a patent because the placer was above 13,500 ft. The other two placer patents were rescinded and the miners scrambled to restake the area again as lodes. The area has some very oddly shaped lode claims in the vicinity of the Dolly Varden Mine. One lode claim has a single end line. The two side lines come to a point at the other end. The Land Office in 1878 said that was fine as long as the lode went through the vertex. The Compromise Lode looks like an eyebrow. Many of the lode claims do not have parallel end lines. Lode claims in the vicinity of the Moose mine look like paper clips. This is all because there are no veins. The deposit is contained within the Leadville Limestone as irregular shaped and oriented "spuds". Harvey Gardner, a retired historian at CU wrote a very interesting book entitled, "Mining among the Clouds: The Mosquito Range and the Origins of Colorado's Silver Boom", 2002. It is a paperback available at Amazon for $14.95. The above story is covered in detail in Mr. Gardner's book. He did some good research and obtained the Land Entry Case files for many of the claims on Bross from the National Archives.


I didn't make the determination that Berringer was the "pre-eminent mining attorney in the U.S" at the time. Heck I wasn't even born yet. rolleyes.gif
Berringer was an acknowledged expert in claim status. There were quite a few people at the time who thought that was the case including Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. Both Roosevelt and Wilson knew Lindley and admired his work but they both publicly lauded Berringer's preeminence in the field. Berringer, Lindley, Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson all ran in the same circles at the time. Lindley was a public speaker and local judge and Berringer was an active mining engineer, and mining lawyer. It's not surprising that Berringer's personal accomplishments would gain him a bit more respect in the industry at a time when actual real world experience and success still mattered.

The fact that Lindley wrote a fine book that was published the same year as Berringers didn't qualify him as an expert on placers and lodes. Berringer actually was a geologist (Harvard and University of Virginia) and lawyer (Princeton and University of Pennsylvania) and owned and operated some of the most successful mines in American history. Berringer thrived in the Tombstone claims quagmire and succeeded in winning his claims where many other famous lawyers had failed. His success made him a wealthy mine owner and well known for his legal ability. Lindley never graduated law school and he took a correspondence course to learn mine engineering. Lindley did eventually receive an honorary Jurisprudence degree from Stanford before his death and his student Herbert Hoover arranged for him to serve as legal counsel in the U.S. Food Department in his last year of life. Both authors had their strong points.

Whether we prefer Lindley's book or Barringer's book today matters little. Everyone has an opinion and I'm sure yours is as highly valued in your realm as mine is where I practice my profession. We aren't required to respect the opinions of the time of Berringers publications but the public statements from those in power at the time favor Berringer. I find Barringers book more readable and better organized yet Lindley's book also covers mining law history and international mining law more completely. They are both very useful books even today. I actually prefer the writing in either work to Terry Maley's more recent efforts. So much for my opinion. tomatoes.gif

The IBLA was the 1970 successor "fix" for the long list of problems with the DOI handling the administrative appeals to their own decisions in their function as the General Land Office and later as the BLM. I'm not sure your comments about the General Land Office reversing themselves several times on patent and claim status doesn't go more to the previous point I made about perversity in the Land Office/IBLA decision process than it does in addressing Berringer's intentions in making lode claims over placers.

Here is Section 11 of the 1872 Mining Act to further illustrate Brandon's comment about the lodes being for "safety's sake".

QUOTE (1872 Mining Act Section 11)
That where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer-claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof; application shall be made for a patent for the placer or lode claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case (subject to the provisions of this act and the act entitled "An act to amend an act granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes," approved July eighteen hundred and seventy) a patent shall issue for the placer-claim, 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 the second section of this act, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer-claim, all 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 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.

I hope that helps clarify my previous post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2017 - 06:18 PM