Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums _ Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations etc. _ New rules for hunting meteorites

Posted by: Woody Oct 15 2012, 08:16 AM


Looks like the Feds are stepping up and placing restrictions on collecting meteorites. I recognize the interest and benefit science might have but the way I interpret this means more regulations placed on our public lands and activities. This might be a bit of a rant on my part but I hate all these rules and regulations on our public lands. I am reminded about the last time I was in the California N.F. I wanted to spend a couple of days in the back country camping. I found out that I needed a permit in order to even have a campfire. Here is another extreme, I was in Germany a few years ago and got an annual fishing license. It cost about 100$. However, if you actually wanted to use it you had to go down to the county court house before the last business day, and pay an additional cost for each and every day you planned on fishing. It was about 10$ extra per day.

This kind of suggest the same thing, you can’t go out hunting meteorites unless you buy a permit.



http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/15/new-rules-for-meteorite-hunters-unveiled/?intcmp=features

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Oct 16 2012, 08:43 AM

Thanks for posting up that article Woody, that's definately something we should all be aware of. Unfortunately the reporter and or the writers of this new bill do not understand who owns the BLM and FS lands! This new restriction can not be legal nor should/will it get anywhere in court, for instance.....for current claim owners, would this mean that now the gov has some "claim" to your surface or subsurface material/deposits?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
As stated in the article, it's always been that meteorites belong to the land owner where they landed. Clearly then if they gov does not own the lands (they do not!) then obviously they can not claim ownership of meteorites that landed in FS or BLM land.

This will make a great discussion point/example for the winter seminars as well. I'll definately be using this as an example along with many others to demonstrate how we need to educate ourselves at the individual level because the media, the gov and many citizens are lost concerning the leagal "ownership" of our land or even their own private lands!

What really sucks is if this new bill passes, then its yet another completely illegally written and passed "law" that will then need to abolished through court proceedings by an individual or small group who likely will not want to pay for or endure the ordeal in court!

On a side note......guess Germany is not the best fishing destination? fishing1.gif

Posted by: russau Oct 17 2012, 05:41 AM

Dan just to clarify what you commented on, there isnt ANY BLM/FS land! its public domain land. and we have a Constitutional RIGHT to prospect/mine it! like you were saying, its our land and the BLM/FS/COE/etc. just manage it for us! yes these laws are (to me) illeagle as all get out! maybe a change in our socalled "representatives" in Washington D.C. will correct this problem. there has been a big push to get all they can now before election time because "they" know itll be all they get! Ken Salazr even told these departments to do what they need to do, even bypass Congress own actions, just to get it done! so much for the will of the people!

Posted by: ASTROBLEME Oct 23 2012, 11:36 AM

Everyone,

This matter concerns me greatly, so I've contacted the Washington Office of BLM. Here is the correspondence as it may be helpful to others that are interested...

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Tonko [mailto:johnny.tonko@meteoritecrater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:54 AM
To: Kuizon, Lucia
Cc: Jenks, Frank M
Subject: Collection of Meteorite Derived Minerals on Public Lands

For clarification, when a meteorite is destroyed by impact into the earth,
it is no longer considered a meteorite. Therefore, tektite gems,
fall-back breccias and impactite specimens are not subject to the
limitations put forth in the Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-182.

Please clarify this matter to your Washington Office and Field Office
Officials.

Sincerely,

Johnny Tonko
President
Tonko Mining Company Inc.
www.meteoritecrater.com


RESPONSE


From: Kuizon, Lucia <lkuizon@blm.gov>
To: Johnny Tonko <johnny.tonko@meteoritecrater.com>
Cc: Jenks, Frank M <fjenks@blm.gov>
Subject: RE: Collection of Meteorite Derived Minerals on Public Lands
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:52:48 -0600

Dear Mr. Tonko.

Thank you for the information on meteorites. I agree, that if there is
absolutely no meteorite material remaining after an impact event, then the
meteorite is totally destroyed and no extraterrestrial material remains.
However, if earth materials are altered by a meteorite impact, such as the
creation of tektites and other impactites, then these materials are still
earth materials that are subject to the appropriate public land laws,
either the mineral materials or other mining laws, or the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). In that case, the casual collecting
policy under 43 CFR 8365.1-5 would still apply for hobby collecting of
common rock and mineral specimens in accordance with FLPMA. The mining and
material laws would apply for commercial collection; and the Antiquities
Act would still apply for scientific collecting of altered materials for
research purposes.

I hope this note helps clarify the status of these altered earth
materials.

Sincerely,
Lucy Kuizon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Kuizon
BLM National Paleontologist
Retiring Nov. 1, 2012.
Future contact is your regional paleontologist at:
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/CRM/paleontology/contacts.html
202-912-7253
lkuizon@blm.gov
FedEx Address: 20 M Street SE Room 2134LM
Attn: Lucia Kuizon, WS-5241, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20003
http://www.blm.gov/paleontology
http://blm.gov/tdkd
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Posted by: swizz Oct 25 2012, 08:40 AM

Great letter Johnny.
The response however seems to be a continuation of misunderstanding and further justification for their "permitting" if I deciphered it correctly.
She breaks down 'collection' into three categories: "Commercial", "Scientific", and "Hobby"... stating different laws for each?
Then she uses the term "extra-terrestrial material".
She acknowledges materials altered by impact as being "earth materials" and I assume.... this is what she interpreted your letter to be in reference to.
She is stating... if the meteorite is vaporized upon impact then that's the end of it. BUT if fragments of the meteorite are present after impact... these pieces are considered a "meteorite" and subject to their new permitting attempt? You indirectly state that the fragments of the meteorite are no longer a "meteorite" after impact? Now I'm thoroughly confused.

I would have expected a more educated response from DC on this. I don't think it will fly. Last thing I want is someone with a 'meteorite permit' poking around my claim saying it is an "extraterrestrial material"... "not a mineral" and their right by Federal Permit to search my claim. Something's rotten in Denmark USA.

Curious to see where this goes.

I moved this up to "Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations" category, hope y'all don't mind. I think it's of great importance.

Posted by: EMac Aug 16 2016, 10:37 AM

Keep in mind this lady was a paleontologist who was retiring 8 days after sending that email. I doubt her opinion carries much weight even if the meteorite hit some dinosaur bones.

The http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2012/IM_2012-182.htmlcame from the Assistant Director of Renewable Resources and Planning. The current position is filled by Mike Tupper. I suspect anyone wanting to refute this direction would have to take it up with him, or to court.


Posted by: 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. The various legislative acts authorize the Executive branch to administer the disposal and management of the Public Lands including promulgating regulations. For example, the General Land Office took over the duties previously assigned to the U.S. Treasury Dept. in 1812. Congress passed many land disposal acts (esp. in the 1800s). They were very interested in developing the natural resources of the Public Lands. Examples are acts that authorized cash entry, preemption, homestead entry, desert land entry, mineral entry, timber culture, stock raising homestead entry, etc. They basically did everything they could to get rid of the Public Lands, including surveying the land prior to sale; what we all call the Public Lands Survey System. My grandparents acquired land in Nebraska through the homesteading acts.

One of the unwritten rights to real property that surveyors deal with is adverse possession. It is well known that the United States Public Lands cannot be adversely possessed. To support this, here is a cite to United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 39-40 (1947) which states,

QUOTE
The Government, which holds its interests here as elsewhere in trust for all the people, is not to be deprived of those interests by the ordinary court rules designed particularly for private disputes over individually owned pieces of property; and officers who have no authority at all to dispose of Government property cannot by their conduct cause the Government to lose its valuable rights by their acquiescence, laches, or failure to act.

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.

As I said above, no where in the U.S. Constitution is there language that provides any right to prospect or mine the Public Lands. The Act of July 26, 1866 is the first legislation that allowed for the possessory right to locatable minerals and obtaining a patent. It wasn't limited to U.S. citizens. An alien could stake and hold a mining claim as long as they actively sought to become a citizen. Before they obtained a patent they had to be a naturalized citizen. The patent application for a mining claim included a form that affirmed that the applicant was a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization. The General Land Office was also authorized to promulgate regulations regarding the disposal of mineral lands.

One of the reasons that I posted the thread on mining laws and regulations was to show that the laws and rulz changed over time. For example, if my ancestor filed a placer claim for petroleum in 1918 and that placer claim was maintained for the last 98 years, then I not only have the right to the oil and gas, I can also exclude anyone from entering, camping, grazing, etc. on that claim. My ancestor's rights cannot be restricted by legislation and/or regulations enacted or implemented after the right was acquired. Now, should I have a lapse in memory and fail to pay my annual maintenance fee by Sept. 1, I have nothing. I cannot restake the placer for petroleum since the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act would be in effect. I cannot forbid multiple use on the claim as FLPMA and Public Law 167 would also be in effect.

I'm sure others here will disagree with my statements. Great! I look forward to a discussion on the merits of our differing opinions. Then maybe we can discuss whether mineral specimens are included in the current definition of a locatable mineral. My impression is that they are not locatable minerals.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Aug 16 2016, 09:50 PM

QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 16 2016, 11:37 AM) *
Keep in mind this lady was a paleontologist who was retiring 8 days after sending that email. I doubt her opinion carries much weight even if the meteorite hit some dinosaur bones.

The http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2012/IM_2012-182.htmlcame from the Assistant Director of Renewable Resources and Planning. The current position is filled by Mike Tupper. I suspect anyone wanting to refute this direction would have to take it up with him, or to court.

I'm surprised her answer wasn't, "Sorry, but the BLM doesn't provide legal opinions". BLM staff are usually very careful to not say anything that might be construed as legal advice, including how the BLM may classify a geologic "deposit".

Last year a client inquired about how to stake an old waste pile. He was interested in reprocessing the tailings. The question came up as to whether it should be staked as a lode (the tailings came from a nearby underground mine) or as a placer (the tailings are not longer in situ). I called the BLM and talked to a mineral examiner and the first thing they said is that they cannot provide legal advice. I told them that I wasn't interested in their opinion on how to file the claim, but rather what guidelines the BLM uses to assess various types of ore deposits as being placer or lode. They still wouldn't respond, but did provide me with contact info to a BLM geologist. That person never returned my calls.

My client decided to postpone filing a location cert. He is considering following Terry Maley's suggestion in his "Mineral Law" book to stake the tailings pile first as a lode claim and then as a placer claim.

Posted by: EMac Aug 16 2016, 10:56 PM

I'm still reading through the previous literature you've provided, so, for now, I'm focused on your previous post's last question. My first stop was to try and find where "locatable mineral" is used in actual legal text. Unfortunately the pdfs you provided previously aren't searchable, and some quick searching was relatively fruitless. I'll continue eating that elephant one bite at a time.

What I did find on http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/minerals/locatable/locatable_minerals.html was a fairly broad definition that ostensibly includes mineral specimens:

QUOTE
The federal law governing locatable minerals is the General Mining Law of 1872 (May 10, 1872), which declared all valuable mineral deposits belonging to the United States ... to be free and open to citizens of the United States to explore for, discover, and purchase.

Mineral deposits subject to acquisition in this manner are generally referred to as “locatable minerals.” Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel, etc.), nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form and gemstones) and certain uncommon variety minerals. It is very difficult to prepare a complete list of locatable minerals because the history of the law has resulted in a definition of minerals that includes economics.


While we're talking about meteorites in this thread, the term mineral specimens seemingly encompasses a wider-variety of types and origins, including gold and crystals as well as meteorites. This gives me an interesting homework assignment; when using "mineral specimen" are you referring chiefly to meteorites, or broader minerals such as smokey quartz, aquamarine, gold, silver, etc.?

I appreciate the food for thought!

Posted by: Gene Kooper Aug 17 2016, 12:10 PM

QUOTE
The federal law governing locatable minerals is the General Mining Law of 1872 (May 10, 1872), which declared all valuable mineral deposits belonging to the United States ... to be free and open to citizens of the United States to explore for, discover, and purchase.

Mineral deposits subject to acquisition in this manner are generally referred to as “locatable minerals.” Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel, etc.), nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form and gemstones) and certain uncommon variety minerals. It is very difficult to prepare a complete list of locatable minerals because the history of the law has resulted in a definition of minerals that includes economics.

EMac,

My impression is based on economics. The 1872 Mining Law states that one can make a claim to, "all valuable mineral deposits" on the Public Lands open to mineral entry. I previously posted a reference by Don Sherwood entitled, "Mineral Discovery: Is the Prudent Man Test Dead". I am not able to provide a copy of his article that was published by the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation in 1998 because it is copyrighted. The old standard was the prudent man test; that being, would a prudent man expend the time, effort and money to develop the mineral deposit.

Today the BLM uses a pure economic test to evaluate whether a valid discovery has been made. Among other things this is subject to the price of the mineral at the time of the BLM's evaluation. Fluctuating metals prices could mean that the discovery of valuable mineral occulates between valid and invalid depending on when the evaluation was made. Other considerations would be if the land is more valuable as agricultural land, timber, etc.

I believe it would be very difficult to show the BLM that a valuable mineral deposit had been found based solely on the value of the mineral as a collectible specimen. I am excluding from my definition of mineral specimens those that also have value as gemstones (includes lapiadary). In other words, the monetary value of the mineral specimen is based only on its collectable value.

The collectible value of mineral specimens is mostly based on the unique qualities (such as the crystal habit, twinning, mineral assemblages, color and aesthetics) and condition of the specimen. You may have a very rare and unique mineral, but collecting it as large plates without damaging the crystals can be very difficult. Assessing market value to mineral specimens before extraction is a slippery slope. One that the BLM may not be willing to take.

BTW....this is only my impression. Since there is a moratorium on patents for mineral lands, the BLM won't likely be evaluating the economics of your mineral specimen mining claim. The only time that I've noticed that the BLM will make such an evaluation is when the land is being considered for removal from the Public Lands open to mineral entry. They often will conduct evaluations of unpatented mining claims to see if the claimant has met all of the requirements under the mining laws and regulation and that a valid discovery of a valuable mineral deposit has been met. Who knows though. The popularity of the TV show "Prospectors" might trigger enough folks to go out and make thorough messes searching for crystals that the BLM decides to take action.

I don't see the BLM creating a new policy that disqualifies mineral specimens from the definition of valuable mineral deposit. I'm just saying that my interpretation suggests that non-gemstone mineral specimens are not a locatable mineral under the current mining laws and regulations. Others interpretation of the law will differ from mine. I also don't think that mineral specimens would be regarded as "certain uncommon variety minerals" because the only situations that I've seen this applied to heavily weighs economic considerations. A few years ago patents were issued for some placer claims that contained a sandstone with unique qualities. Ordinarily building stone is not a locatable mineral, but in this instance the porosity of the sandstone made it uniquely valuable. It is crushed and used as a subbase for golf courses because its high moisture retention reduces the amount of irrigation water.

Posted by: Clay Diggins Aug 17 2016, 01:33 PM

That non-binding BLM policy Instruction Memorandum about meteorite collecting expired in September 2013. There are no regulations or court decisions about the ownership of meteorites on public land. There is however a rather large body of law on the recovery of valuable minerals left by meteorites - we call that mining.

All the minerals on earth were accreted from outer space. Making distinctions about just when those minerals landed here is pretty futile. What the BLM did with their brief memorandum was to continue to classify meteorite collecting with other types of mineral collecting. Collecting of mineral material from the public lands is a regulated activity unrelated to mining of valuable minerals. The regulations for collecting meteorite specimens is no different than collecting agates or any other interesting rock you might find on the public lands.

There obviously is a crossover point where meteorite materials may become a valuable mineral deposit. This is not about the source or age of the meteorite material but rather about whether the deposit can be shown to be a "valuable mineral" under the mining acts.

I'm not just speculating here. One of the foremost mining engineers and mining lawyers in American history proved, claimed, mined and received mineral patents totaling 640 acres to a meteorite deposit. Daniel Moureau Barringer mined tons of nickle rich iron as well as very rare Moissanite from his placer claims on Coon Butte. Today the official name is Berringer Crater but it's better known as simply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater.

Obviously it is possible to claim, mine and receive patent to land where sufficient concentrated meteorite metal deposits are found. Simple collecting of scattered meteorite material does not amount to a valuable mineral deposit under the law so it is regulated just like rock or specimen collecting.

Posted by: EMac Aug 17 2016, 01:44 PM

Gene -

I have a knee-jerk opinion, but I'm seeking to refine it through study. My opinion is that rejection/voiding of claims based on the types minerals folks here are mining doesn't appear to be an issue today, but it's certainly something to be aware of. Perhaps if someone was holding claims as a blocking maneuver, and not working them, they might have more cause for concern.

I'm reviewing this precedent setting case now: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/390/599.html. I'm focused on some facts of the case and what the intent is with the decision. My summary (meaning I could have misinterpreted some aspects): Coleman's patent application to mine quartzite as a building material on 720 acres outside Los Angeles was rejected by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI). At some point he built a home on the 720 acres, and the government filed suit in District Court to have him ejected when he wouldn't leave. Coleman countered with a suit seeking issuance of the patent that was previously rejected. The District court supported the SOI's decision, and it was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court then took up the case and sided with the District Court and SOI, overturning the Appeals Court decision.

My opinion is this was a clear-cut case of abusing the intent of the law to gain personal property with no intention of conducting mining activities. I derive this opinion quoting the Supreme Court opinion:

QUOTE
The obvious intent was to reward and encourage the discovery of minerals that are valuable in an economic sense. Minerals which no prudent man will extract because there is no demand for them at a price higher than the cost of extraction and transportation are hardly economically valuable. Thus, profitability is an important consideration in applying the prudent-man test, and the [390 U.S. 599, 603] marketability test which the Secretary has used here merely recognizes this fact.

QUOTE
The marketability test also has the advantage of throwing light on a claimant's intention, a matter which is inextricably bound together with valuableness. For evidence that a mineral deposit is not of economic value and cannot in all likelihood be operated at a profit may well suggest that a claimant seeks the land for other purposes. Indeed, as the Government points out, the facts of this case - the thousands of dollars and hours spent building a home on 720 acres in a highly scenic national forest located two hours from Los Angeles, the lack of an economically feasible market for the stone, and the immense quantities of identical stone found in the area outside the claims - might well be thought to raise a substantial question as to respondent Coleman's real intention.


I don't disagree with your points, and can envision scenarios where the case isn't so clearly defined as with Coleman. This is where additional case law would be helpful to see if they've refined the economic tests further since Coleman. The cases I've found so far deal with patents.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2343508/osborne-v-hammit/ is similar in character to the Coleman case.

I found http://openjurist.org/505/f2d/180/clear-gravel-enterprises-inc-v-keil, which is markedly different than Coleman in that the decision appears to be based off the number of sand/gravel claims already approved in conjunction with the limited market:
QUOTE
While the marketability of the mineral could have been demonstrated by the Appellant by a showing of its accessibility, its proximity to the market, the demand for it and by the Appellant's bona fide efforts to develop the claims and compete in the market with the product extracted from those claims, nonetheless, the record demonstrates that Appellant's evidence fell far short of the required showing. Instead, the evidence indicates that although Appellant had between 1952 and no later than 1956 leased all sixteen claims to the second largest sand and gravel-producing company in the area, that company had mined but one of those claims, and the one being mined was neither of the two claims here involved.

QUOTE
Of particular significance is the obvious fact appearing from the record that the quantity of Appellant's other sand and gravel holdings in the area, when combined with the state of the market, were such as to deter the Appellant from expending money and effort to extract and market the sand and gravel from the claims in question from the time of location in 1946 until approximately 1963. In fact, the lack of development of the claims were such that as of July 23, 1955, the Appellant had not even constructed a road to them.

Posted by: EMac Aug 17 2016, 03:25 PM

QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 17 2016, 02:33 PM) *
That non-binding BLM policy Instruction Memorandum about meteorite collecting expired in September 2013. There are no regulations or court decisions about the ownership of meteorites on public land. There is however a rather large body of law on the recovery of valuable minerals left by meteorites - we call that mining.
Good catch...I didn't see the expiration date on it.

QUOTE
I'm not just speculating here. One of the foremost mining engineers and mining lawyers in American history proved, claimed, mined and received mineral patents totaling 640 acres to a meteorite deposit. Daniel Moureau Barringer mined tons of nickle rich iron as well as very rare Moissanite from his placer claims on Coon Butte. Today the official name is Berringer Crater but it's better known as simply Meteor Crater.
I'm not certain you're comparing apples to apples here. The http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=AZAZAA%20022947&docClass=SER&sid=ivtwl1ik.uus was in 1903. In 1906 and again in 1909 Barringer and Tilghman presented their arguments to the Academy of Natural Sciences (http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php), 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: http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_6.php). Barringer estimated 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.

QUOTE
One writer said of Barringer’s 1909 address to the National Academy of Sciences at Princeton: “[S]ome persons could scarcely conceal their derisive thoughts. Nevertheless… Barringer ploughed through his paper, painful though it must have been for him, until he completed it.”
(http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php)

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.

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...

There is some case law on meteorites (https://casetext.com/case/people-of-st-of-cal-ex-rel-younger-v-mead, http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-cribbet/finding/goddard-v-winchell/), but these don't deal with mining claims.

QUOTE
Obviously it is possible to claim, mine and receive patent to land where sufficient concentrated meteorite metal deposits are found. Simple collecting of scattered meteorite material does not amount to a valuable mineral deposit under the law so it is regulated just like rock or specimen collecting.
Securing a patent in today's age won't happen until they lift the moratorium on land patents; if they do, submitting the application will likely reopen the discussion. My opinion is that it's a very grey area, even without land patents, just waiting for some brave, unfortunate soul to take up the mantle in court (I also suspect not by choice).

Edit: fixed grammar and readability

Posted by: Gene Kooper Aug 17 2016, 04:07 PM

QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 17 2016, 02:33 PM) *
I'm not just speculating here. One of the foremost mining engineers and mining lawyers in American history proved, claimed, mined and received mineral patents totaling 640 acres to a meteorite deposit. Daniel Moureau Barringer mined tons of nickle rich iron as well as very rare Moissanite from his placer claims on Coon Butte. Today the official name is Berringer Crater but it's better known as simply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater.

Yes, as EMac stated, 640 acres were patented to the Standard Iron Co in 1903. I attached a copy of the patent below.

[attachment=9913:CDI_93182.PDF]
As an additional wrinkle to this discussion, please note that the four claims that were patented are the Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn Placers. As you say Daniel Moreau Barringer was a mining attorney who with John Stokes Adams wrote the mining treatise, "The Law of Mines and Mining in the United States" (1st vol. 1897; reprinted in 1900 and 2nd supplemental vol. 1911). Here is the https://books.google.com/books?id=3NlAAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Interesting to say the least that Barringer decided to claim the "deposit" with four placer claims. Below is a link to the plat that shows four open cuts (discoveries for the four placer locations) and three tunnels. Also, another oddity for EMac: Please note that although the four placers are each 160-acre association placers a mineral survey was required because the public lands survey had not been extended to this area yet. All four placer claims are tied to United States Location Monument No. 1806. Something odd happened early on in the public lands surveys in this area because there is a half Range (Meteor Crater is presently located in Secs. 13 and 24, T. 19 N., R 12˝ E. of the Gila - Salt River Principal Meridian).

http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=317742&sid=tnuszp0v.gu3&surveyDetailsTabIndex=1

QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 17 2016, 02:33 PM) *
Obviously it is possible to claim, mine and receive patent to land where sufficient concentrated meteorite metal deposits are found. Simple collecting of scattered meteorite material does not amount to a valuable mineral deposit under the law so it is regulated just like rock or specimen collecting.

To add to your reply, the patent was issued in 1903. Standard Iron Co. did not have to catagorize the mineral deposit as coming from a meteor or that it was economic. They only had to meet the minimum requirement of having made $500 in mining improvements to obtain the patent. As an aside: The minimum of $500 in mining improvements was usually included in the approved survey's field notes and certified by the U.S. Dep. Mineral Surveyor in the old days. For cases where the $500 had not been met at the time of the survey, a separate affidavit of improvements made by the surveyor and a certificate of expenditures certified by the Surveyor General were included in the patent application.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Aug 17 2016, 04:24 PM

EMac,

Thanks for the links to the court cases. I'll read through them when I have more time.

In addition to court cases, you can find a lot of info from IBLA (Interior Board of Land Appeals) cases. When an affected party decides to challenge a BLM ruling, the party must file an administrative appeal with the IBLA. An administrative law judge will then rule on the merits. Only after a party exhausts all of their administrative appeal rights can they then proceed to a Federal district court. I posted this before, but here is the Dept. of Interior's Office of Hearing and Appeal advanced search web page. Click on the IBLA check box and enter "gulch placer" in the "with the exact phrase" box. It will list all IBLA decisions where the term "gulch placer" was found. My search produced 22 hits.

https://www.oha.doi.gov:8080/isysadvsearch.html

Posted by: Clay Diggins Aug 17 2016, 05:18 PM

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.

Posted by: Clay Diggins Aug 17 2016, 05:32 PM

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.

Posted by: 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?

Posted by: Clay Diggins Aug 17 2016, 08:18 PM

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Posted by: Clay Diggins Aug 17 2016, 11:33 PM

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.

Posted by: EMac Aug 18 2016, 10:26 AM

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.

Posted by: EMac Aug 18 2016, 11:05 AM

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 http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel/350798.pdf (quick math says that's less than $32 a ton). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater (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.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Aug 18 2016, 04:57 PM

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 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/529/case.html 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.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Aug 18 2016, 05:09 PM

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.

Posted by: EMac Sep 7 2016, 10:40 AM

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.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/07/492941644/trial-opens-for-occupiers-of-oregon-wildlife-refuge eating-popcorn-03.gif

Posted by: Clay Diggins Sep 26 2016, 11:53 PM

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateritic_nickel_ore_deposits 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 http://www.rasny.org/publications/fairchild.htm.

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 http://www.powells.com/book/the-law-of-mines-and-mining-in-the-united-states-volume-2-9781343911291 (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 http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-unit.php?unit=AZP;0 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:



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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1964Metic...2..183B&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Clay Diggins Sep 27 2016, 08:51 PM

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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Clay Diggins Oct 2 2016, 12:21 PM

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.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Oct 6 2016, 10:48 PM

QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Oct 2 2016, 01:21 PM) *
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.

First, it's Barringer not Berringer. Second, if you are going to make bald assertions regarding Mr. Barringer such as, "[c]learly he was the leading expert on the differences between lode and placer claims" then providing some references would be appropriate. As for that assertion, I've never heard anyone anointing themself as an expert in determining whether a deposit is a placer or lode (let alone be THE expert). It is a fairly straightforward process and if there is some ambiguity classifying the deposit then staking the deposit as both placer and lodes is a simple fix until the GLO/BLM makes their determination. The only thing regarding lodes and placers that I see much case law on is the issue of lodes within placers, esp. what constitutes a "known" lode. Maybe you can point to some cases that deal just with the determination of whether an ore deposit should be staked as a placer or lode, esp. any where Mr. Barringer represented the winning party. It would also be nice to include some references where the Presidential names you dropped actually are quoted as acknowledging Mr. Barringer to be THE expert in lode vs. placer claims. I would also enjoy seeing any SCOTUS decisions where Barringer's treatise is quoted. "Lindley on Mines" has been cited in many SCOTUS decisions (see Colby's articles on Curtis Holbrook Lindley that are attached below).

Your comparison of Lindley and Barringer and your determination that an Ivy League educated man is apparently superior to others doesn't hold water either. I am reminded of the opposing views of John Muir and Josiah Whitney the California State Geologist with regard to whether Yosemite was carved by glaciers or created by some other process. Mr. (or should I use Dr. since he was a professor of geology at Harvard) Whitney was very smug about Muir's lack of formal education in the geological sciences. Muir, however walked Yosemite and made the field observations. Muir did the science while Dr. Whitney pontificated from his office. In the end Muir was proved right and the highly educated State Geologist was dead wrong. Mr. Barringer nearly lost his entire fortune investing in Meteor Crater just before his death. He may have figured out that it was an meteor impact, but he was wrong by nearly two orders of magnitude on the size of the deposit and the fact that most of it likely vaporized upon impact. From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
The mining of the crater continued until 1929 without ever finding the ten-million ton meteorite that Barringer assumed must be hidden. At this time the astronomer Forest Ray Moulton performed calculations on the energy expended by the meteorite on impact, and concluded that the meteorite had most likely vaporized when it landed. By this point Barringer had spent over $600,000 in mining the crater, nearly bankrupting him, with no iron profits to show for it.

Barringer died of a heart attack on November 30, 1929, shortly after reading the very persuasive arguments that no iron was to be found. He was survived by his wife, Margaret Bennett, and eight children, who, with their descendants, formed the Barringer Crater Company, which owns the site to this day.

Educational credentials alone are meaningless. I have degrees in geological engineering and hydrogeology from Colorado School of Mines; so what. I suppose I could think that since I'm a Professional Geologist in Colorado that my opinion of lodes vs. placers should hold extra weight. Mr. Lindley's father was a lawyer in the old California mining camps. Some might assert that being raised in that environment was a far better education on mining law than merely graduating from Penn. I attached a couple of articles on Judge Lindley written by William Colby that were published in the California Law Review. Mr. Colby (along with Mr. Lindley) was a recognized expert in extralateral rights. He wrote a series of articles in 1916-1917 on the topic for the California Law Review, a reprint of which is included in, "The Extralateral Right - Shall it be Abolished?", 1918.

[attachment=10036:Curtis_H..._Lindley.pdf]
[attachment=10037:Mining_L...nt_Years.pdf]

I also cannot fathom your contention of the perversity of IBLA decisions. The IBLA handles administrative appeals of BLM decisions. Before a party can bring suit in a federal district court, they must exhaust their administrative appeals. In other words, they must file a protest and appeal to the IBLA first if they disagree with a BLM decision. The IBLA is primarily concerned with whether the BLM adhered to all of the guidelines, instructions, policies, processes, etc. If they did everything according to the book, then the IBLA invariably supports the BLM decision. On rare occasion they modify the rules, so to speak. For example, in the past the BLM had the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt regarding boundary evidence to support their decisions. The IBLA relaxed that standard to substantial evidence. The IBLA then defined substantial evidence as more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance of the evidence. If you want to assert your personal opinion as being correct, it would be nice if you would cite examples of IBLA decisions that you regard as perverse. A few years ago I completed the BLM's Certified Federal Surveyor training program. The training takes approx. 220 hours to complete and is geared towards training private surveyors in the "ways of the BLM". I read and studied over 40 IBLA cases and I would not classify one of them as being a perversion. Your mileage is obviously different. Care to illustrate your position?

You failed to notice in my last post that I did not hold up one legal treatise as being superior to the rest. I have originals of all but W.P. Wade's book. From my perspective, it is imperative to keep an open mind and critically read and evaluate those texts before coming to any conclusion. I am a land surveyor not an attorney. I am tasked with applying the law not interpreting it. I often look for what has been done in the past and for examples of how a law or regulation was applied, not what I believe to be true after lawyerly parsing the text of the law. As far as I know, I've not represented myself as an expert on mining law on this forum, but rather I have shared some of my research and perspective on how I deal with the oddities of mining law as it relates to my retracements/dependent resurveys of mineral surveys. I am regarded by the State of Colorado as competent to practice land surveying. I don't know you other than by your forum nickname Clay, so please pardon me if you feel offended when I challenge you to support your opinions. I also don't know what your research interests are or whether you are held in high esteem in your profession as you stated above. All I go by is your posts here and you seem to at times cavalierly bandy about your opinions as fact (usually without any cites).

QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Oct 2 2016, 01:21 PM) *
Here is Section 11 of the 1872 Mining Act to further illustrate Brandon's comment about the lodes being for "safety's sake".


I hope that helps clarify my previous post.

Your quote of Section 11 of the 1872 Mining Act does nothing to support your premise. Section 11 does not support "Brandon's comment about the lodes being for 'safety's sake.'" I discussed in my previous post that Daniel Barringer approached the staking of Meteor Crater in a belt and suspenders way. As I stated, this was most likely because he was not certain how the General Land Office would rule and wanted to guarantee his right to develop the ore deposit regardless of whether it was determined to be a placer deposit or lode deposit by the GLO.

Posted by: Clay Diggins Oct 7 2016, 02:34 AM

Thanks for sharing your opinion Gene.

I see it as perfectly acceptable to prefer one author's writing to another's. I'm glad you feel free to express your opinion on the same subject. I'm not sure we disagree in our opinions?

I did know those things about Lindley and his father and I appreciate you sharing them on the forum. As I wrote he authored a fine book. I'm glad to read that the courts have given his writing recognition.

As far as source material that led me to make the statement that Barringer was an acknowledged expert on mining law and claim status at the time I've included some study material below:

If you want to read some of Roosevelt's writings from the time http://hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/collections/roosevelt.cfm has a very nice collection. I'm sure you will find quite a bit of information about Barringer since they were long time friends and co-founders of the https://www.boone-crockett.org/about/about_history.asp?area=about. Barringer also wrote some popular articles about his hunting and exploring adventures for the Club magazine as well as his books on geology and mining law. I found several interesting documents in the Federal Repository of the Skeen Library on the campus of the New Mexico School of Mines. A wonderful mining collection there, you should visit if you get the chance. There is also a Federal Repository in Denver but I don't know the extent of their mining collection - they may have some of the same material there also.

As for Woodrow Wilson I imagine some of his correspondence with Barringer might be found in the http://www.woodrowwilson.org/. You will find they corresponded regularly throughout their adult lives. Wilson and Barringer were classmates at Princeton and lifelong friends but Barringer was also a personal adviser on mining and geological matters to Wilson. You will find a nice tribute by Woodrow Wilson to Barringer's legal ability at the Duke University collection also.

You will find quite a bit of information on Barringer and his working relationships at the Barringer collection at http://rbsc.princeton.edu/collections/barringer-family-papers. There are nearly 40 cubic feet of records there so plan on spending a little time rummaging through that pile. You might find some of the information on Barringer's reputation useful at the Biographical Directory of Congress - Research Collections

With a little deeper research you will find that Barringer advised Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, Dr. George Bird Grinnell, Owen Wister and Aldo Leopold on the legal aspects of the creations of National Parks, Wilderness, Wildlife Refuges and the National Forests as they related to mining rights and land status. He was at the center of that land status revolution.

Barringer's father was a U.S. Congressman, Ambassador to Spain and respected lawyer who advised Zachery Taylor on the status of the gold mines in Cabarrus and Mecklenburg counties, N.C as well as being his advisor on Cabinet positions. He became friends with Abe Lincoln and Robert E. Lee early on in his career and his son grew up with those famous individuals and many others as household visitors and travel companions in his early youth.

It's true that Barringer graduated from several Ivy league schools, beginning with his admission to Princeton at the age of 15. All eight of his children graduated from Princeton also. He obviously was passionate about education but he was also an accomplished surveyor and geologist who got a very practical education in the field performing PLSS ground surveys in Arkansas and geologic and mine engineering consulting in several mines around the world. Of course his multiple mining successes speak to some aspects of his abilities as well.

Was Barringer "better" than Lindley? I really don't have an opinion that would matter a hill of beans to anyone. Was Barringer the most respected and knowledgeable mining lawyer of his time? I imagine that would be more about who you asked. If you asked the most influential and powerful leaders in America during the period under discussion I think you will find that they said yes in print and in their actions during that dynamic time in mining and land status law.

Thanks again for sharing. I hope you find those references enlightening.

Posted by: EMac Oct 7 2016, 10:10 AM

Clay - I'm trying to follow the comments and links provided, but I have much more difficulty following your assertions.

For instance, you link to the Boone and Crockett club to show that Roosevelt and Barringer were friends and founded the club. I can find where this is written about elsewhere, but not on the actual site you link to. http://www.boone-crockett.org/about/search_results.asp?query=barringer#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=barringer to their internal search, and my query for Barringer found zero results.

I can find the linkage elsewhere though: http://www.mainlinetoday.com/Main-Line-Today/November-2010/Barringer-rsquos-Big-Bang/

The same goes with your link to the Woodrow Wilson library. A search for Barringer returns zero results as well.

Searching Harvard's library for Barringer returned five results, none related to mining or Daniel Barringer:
- 3 returned results for bibliographies for this Aspects of East Anglian Pre-History, ed. Christopher Barringer. Norwich: Geo Books, 1984 by Christopher Barringer
- 2 returned results for this bibliographic reference: Gerard, P.J., J.R.F. Barringer, J.G. Charles, S.V. Fowler, J.M. Kean, C.B. Phillips, A.B. Tait, G.P. Walker, 2012:
Potential effects of climate change on biological control systems: case studies from New Zealand. BioControl,
advance online, DOI: 10.1007/s10526-012-9480-0

I'm trying to verify what you say, but I'm not readily able to do that.

Posted by: Gene Kooper Oct 22 2016, 12:22 AM

Clay,

I must say that I am surprised by your unwillingness to support your bald assertions. I waited a while to respond in the hope that you would add some meat to those assertions.

You state that Barringer is THE mining law expert. I only challenged you because you failed to support your assertion. On other forums that I post to, it is customary to support one's opinion/assertions. I find your reply to not be supportive of your positions. Instead of including links to back up your assertions, you throw out red herrings like U.S. Presidents thinking that Mr. Barringer is THE expert because he and Teddy Roosevelt founded the Boone and Crocket club. GEEZ, how does that support him being annointed by you as THE legal expert in mining law? Also, you assert that he is CLEARLY THE expert on lodes vs. placers without any specific cites or links. Here are a couple of nice, succinct articles in "The Mining Reporter which was published weekly in Denver on what constitutes a placer. The authors must be incompetent or nitwits as they never once mention Barringer.

[attachment=10104:WhatCons...g16_1906.pdf]

It is usually customary to provide links and references that directly support one's opinion, not a general link to the library of a past President or Ivy League school. You may find this odd, but I have no interest in being your research assistant. If there is something in one of your links that supports your position then it is your task to provide it, not mine. Remember, I'm the one not buying your bald assertion. BTW....I'm shocked, shocked I say that you didn't include the link to the https://www.loc.gov/ for completeness!

I did not state in my reply that I find Mr. Lindley to be THE legal expert in mining law. I provided him and several others as authors of mining law treatises, horn books, digests and mining reports. Each of those authors have their strengths and weaknesses.

Oh, and one other thing, it is obvious that you think highly of Barringer. I mean, according to your mostly fact free reply he was also an accomplished surveyor. I will call bull on your fable that, "he was also an accomplished surveyor....performing PLSS ground surveys in Arkansas". The term "PLSS ground surveys" is a fiction; there is no such thing!

Since this forum is predominately about prospecting in Colorado, may I suggest as a reference to others Robert Stewart Morrison's horn book on mining law. Several editions are available at Google Books. Mr. Morrison published 15 editions of his book from 1874 through 1917. His son and son-in-law published a 16th edition in 1936. Mr. Morrison began his legal practice in Georgetown, CO and later moved to Denver. His horn book on mining rights includes the local mining customs and state statutes for Colorado and show the evolution of the mining laws, regulations and customs (primarily for Colorado). Here are three editions available at Google Books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=PvZYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=ShIxAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=6S00AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mr. Morrison also compiled 22 volumes of Mining Reports. The compilation is organized alphabetically, so it is not always easy to find particular cases. With a bit of patience one can find all 22 volumes of Morrison's Mining Reports on Google Books. Here is a link showing several of the volumes available for download.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HJs9AAAAIAAJ&dq=intitle:Mining+inauthor:Morrison&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Until recently, the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation had free access to an index compiled by Don Sherwood on Morrison's Mining Reports. Don Sherwood is a retired mining attorney who I have worked with in the past. His index is very helpful. One thing that Mr. Sherwood mentioned to me is that R.S. Morrison usually listed what he regarded as the most important case first for each topic. Each volume has a "Table of Headings" for the topics included in that volume. Hopefully, the RMMLF will consider making those web pages available again in the near future.

Mr. Morrison was a respected mining law attorney. Here is an example of a letter he and his son-in-law, Emilio DeSoto wrote in, "The Mining Reporter". Folks may find it an interesting read regarding an old Land Office policy that was called an, "evil foisted upon the mining industry"!

[attachment=10103:Monument...b18_1904.pdf]

Posted by: Clay Diggins Feb 4 2018, 01:33 PM

I've let this lie here in hopes that eventually someone would look into the subject of this thread. "New rules for hunting meteorites"
Obviously there has been no follow up or discussion.

It seems this is a hot subject for some people in other industries. The discussion has devolved on one side to ad hominem, red herring, moral equivalence and other logical fallacies. I usually don't see these methods used unless the discussion revolves around politics or religion. I don't mean to take this thread further from the subject being discussed but I feel leaving these obvious slurs on my character and abilities is a disservice to the discussion and to the ability of others to have an unobstructed view of the actual subject "New rules for hunting meteorites".

QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Oct 21 2016, 11:22 PM) *
I must say that I am surprised by your unwillingness to support your bald assertions. I waited a while to respond in the hope that you would add some meat to those assertions.

You state that Barringer is THE mining law expert. I only challenged you because you failed to support your assertion. On other forums that I post to, it is customary to support one's opinion/assertions. I find your reply to not be supportive of your positions. Instead of including links to back up your assertions, you throw out red herrings like U.S. Presidents thinking that Mr. Barringer is THE expert because he and Teddy Roosevelt founded the Boone and Crocket club. GEEZ, how does that support him being annointed by you as THE legal expert in mining law? Also, you assert that he is CLEARLY THE expert on lodes vs. placers without any specific cites or links. Here are a couple of nice, succinct articles in "The Mining Reporter which was published weekly in Denver on what constitutes a placer. The authors must be incompetent or nitwits as they never once mention Barringer.

It is usually customary to provide links and references that directly support one's opinion, not a general link to the library of a past President or Ivy League school. You may find this odd, but I have no interest in being your research assistant. If there is something in one of your links that supports your position then it is your task to provide it, not mine. Remember, I'm the one not buying your bald assertion. BTW....I'm shocked, shocked I say that you didn't include the link to the https://www.loc.gov/ for completeness!

This is a misunderstanding on your part Gene. I have the material you so badly want to prove doesn't exist with but my agreement that allows me to post here prevents me sharing links to my extensive reference library. I have given you the sources for the materials in my library but you have chosen not to pursue those sources. I don't blame you for that, not many individuals have the passion for research that I have.

QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Oct 21 2016, 11:22 PM) *
Oh, and one other thing, it is obvious that you think highly of Barringer. I mean, according to your mostly fact free reply he was also an accomplished surveyor. I will call bull on your fable that, "he was also an accomplished surveyor....performing PLSS ground surveys in Arkansas". The term "PLSS ground surveys" is a fiction; there is no such thing!

The Arkansas Geological Division hired Barringer to accomplish portions of the PLSS ground survey in that State. That's what it was called in his commission and it's still referred to that way in the Arkansas Geological Division.

I didn't make up the term but your comment did make me curious. It seems the term "ground survey" is very commonly used to refer to an actual walking survey as opposed to an aerial survey or, as in the case of some portions of the PLSS, a protracted (paper) survey.

Looking further I see that in my copy of Glossaries of BLM Surveying and Mapping Terms there is a definition for ground survey:
QUOTE
GROUND SURVEY - A survey made by measurement on the surface of the earth as distinguished from aerial survey.


There are many more examples of the use of the term "ground survey" in the surveying industry. As was my previous understanding it's a delimiting phrase describing the method of a survey - including the PLSS. Hyperbole aside I think you may have misstated your understanding of a common term in the field of surveying?
_______________________________________

As for whether Barringer is considered an expert on the difference between placer and lode I didn't have to look very far for evidence of his status in that respect.

In the seminal 1903 Land Office appeal to the Alamo Consolidated Marble Mine patent approval the question was whether a deposit of valuable marble should be located as a lode or a placer. The patent approval pivoted on this question and after several hearings with opposite outcomes Barringer & Adams Law of Mining and Minerals was quoted as an authoritative source in the decision.

In the 1997 Solicitor's Opinion on patenting of Millsites Barringer & Adams Law of Mining and Minerals was quoted as an authoritative source in the opinion.

In the 2004 IBLA Quality Earth Materials appeal Thompson on Real Property 1994 and Barringer & Adams Law of Mining and Minerals were the only two non judicial sources relied upon in the decision. Interestingly the issues were about the ownership and timely removal of purchased minerals.

There are many more. I'm sure if you have a real interest in this subject you will find your own examples throughout the history of jurisprudence of placer and lode validation where Barringer was used as a valued reference.

As for the Boone and Crockett thing you will need to dig through Barringer's box of documents and correspondence curated there. It's not too hard to find, it's the only original repository with a proper name on it. Inside you will find a wealth of information on the rise of the environmental movement and Barringers contributions to the legal aspects of removing claimants from their mineral ownership within proposed reserves and National Parks. Roosevelt, Leopold and the other leaders of the movement relied on Barringer's expertise to accomplish the changes in mining law administration needed before the lands could be unencumbered. Those methods are still in use today and they rely chiefly on the challenge methods developed by Barringer. It's a fascinating and important part of mining history that has been buried for too long in my opinion.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)