americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org
mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Classroom # 1 - Homework Assignment #1
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> THE CLASSROOM
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Glindberg



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

#1 ) Sec 3 of 1866

#2) all US citizens and those whom have declared as such

#3)The right of possesion and ejoyment of all surfaces w/i lines of location, exclusive right to locators,tunnel owner rights,rights of co-owners

#4)locating, marking claim, filing appriopate paper work

#5) no it ammended it, section 16 states the rights are not impaired from existing acts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Glindberg



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

with regards to question 1 if sec 3 of the 1866 act is true then so would sec 12 of the 1870 act for placer and then sec 3 of the 1872 act provided I understand the defintion of a grant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lastchancelarry



Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Posts: 158
Location: hood river, ore

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

guys..I got off work yesterday and had to go straight to a blazers/clippers game with my son  Laughing a nd slept in and now work...I am behind but i am signing in to class..will play catchup tonight and in the morning....
_________________
keep it simple stupid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Glindberg



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

also included in question 3 is the right to defend

I believe answers to 1 and 3 can be found here:
In Belk v. Meagher, the supreme court says of the Mining Act of 1866

even a blind dog can find a bone if he searches (in my case researches) long enough!
_________________
Navy Vet 1983-1992 (Submariner SSN-612)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goldriver



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Location: Redmond, Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure how this works . .  was that the whole assignment? I basically operate on a "need to Know Basis"  . .  are you suggesting that we be able to quote the mining law to people who can't even hear a word your saying. We have Caliban like operatives imbedded into all governmental agencies who seek to subterfuge the law thru insurrgency.
_________________
"Have Dredge . . . Will Travel"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Glindberg



Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Goldriver I agree we have people trying to subterfuge the law but since these laws have been around for 145 years or so and still have the teeth to defend miners I think the laws speak for themselves.........We as miners need to be able to understand what has been layed before us so we to are able to educate and defend. Plus what you describe is human nature from the beginning........thus why mankind needs laws in the first place
_________________
Navy Vet 1983-1992 (Submariner SSN-612)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hefty wrote:
Please answer, in your own words, the following questions:

1. Where is the grant in the Mining Law?
   A locator of a mining claim has a possessory title thereto, and the right to the exclusive possession thereof.
The words imply property. The right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of a mining claim includes the right to work it, to extract the mineral therefrom, to the exclusive property in such mineral, and the right to defend such possession. The right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of property, accompanied with the right to acquire the absolute title thereto, presupposes a grant, and the instrument of this grant, as applied to mining claims upon the public lands,
This act being of general application to all the mineral lands belonging to the government, and conferring a title or easement therein upon the locator thereof, and vesting the right in him to become the absolute owner to the exclusion of all others, is a legislative grant, and being given by act of congress, is equivalent to a patent from the United States to the same.



2. Who is eligible to be a grantee?
    All citizens of the United States and those that intend to be.

3. What rights are granted by the Mining Law?
   explore, occupy,possession and use of, patent, follow load or vein, water, surface, vegetation, access, minerals, without interuptions


4. How are these granted rights enacted by a potential mineral estate grantee?
  explore, find, mark land, file notice of claim with intent for patent.


5. Did the Act of 1872 eliminate the rights contained in the two previous acts? If so, why? If not, why not?
   No….they were consolidated into 1872 Act


Well done, Hefty. You are getting it.

On question #1, you are citing Belk vs. Meagher, a very famous mining case that specifically lays down many of the rights that stem from the Act of 1866. That said, I want to point out an "obvious" that many people seem to miss in the Act of 1866.

It begins with an enacting clause -

" Reported by Mr. STEWART. from the Committee on Public Lands,
to the act (H. R. 365) granting the right of way to ditch and
canal owners over the public lands in the States of California,
Oregon, and Nevada, viz: Strike out all after the enacting
clause, and insert as follows: "

Also look at Section 8 of the 1866 -

1 SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the right of
2 way for the construction of highways over public lands, not
3 reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.

It then follows stating that the mineral lands are open to exploration and occupation.

As well, the actual conveyance of property rights in Secs. 2, 3, 8, 9 in the Act of 1866 clearly illustrates what is being granted.

You also plainly pointed out in Question 5 that despite the fact that certain Sections of the 1866 were repealed, they were saved in the Act of 1872. That is not only just an opinion, but in fact, Rep. Sargent who was responsible for carrying the bill the house specifically stated "the bill does nothing to change the existing mineral policy of the country".

In question #3, you did neglect to mention one right that was granted and vested in the miner, and that is the right of ingress and egress, which was a reaffirmation of Sec. 8 of the Act of 1866.

Question #4 could have been easily summed up by merely stating that the granted rights are "self initiating", but you have clearly identified the process of that self initiation. That said, these rights are technically granted  once a person merely chooses to accept the provisions of the grant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

legalminer wrote:
Just breezed in myself.  
Hefty's asnwers look good to me.

I have a question about #2
Who is eligible for the grant?

If it's only for citizens and those applying or want to be citizens, then how about all the corporations?  I know they are considered to be their own entity, but they're certainly not citizens.
I have filed several mining claims using an LLC as one of the claimants.  I guess the BLM considers the LLC as another person as long as one of the locators is a member of the LLC.

Maybe I'm not supposed to ask questions yet...
If so, please move this post.


You have raised a good point and am glad that you did. A corporation is indeed considered to be a citizen of the United States as far as the 14th amendment is concerned. This was enacted the same year as the mining law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

beebarjay wrote:
Sec 9 of the 1865 Law of Possession I believe answers most of the questions asked.  But the Grant seems to be restored from some previous custom or possibly the rule set by miners within a geopgraphical location or district.

So here is Sec 9 put to language with definitions: as best I could conclude.


No pssessory action between (Individuals): those people (person/groups/corps) given title to a given tract of mineral land, in any of the courts of the Unitied States for (Recovery): Restoration of their former right to any mining (Title): Possession/occupation, or for (Damages):  .....???.....to such (Title): Possession/occupation, shall be affected by the fact that the (Paramount): That which is superior (Title): Possession/occupation to the land which such mines are, is in the U.S., but that each (Case): contested question before a court shall be (Adjudged): Determined/decided by a judicial procedure by the law of (Possession): The physical enjoyment of a thing while others are excluded.

If the Grant was established as a mining custom ealier and reaffirmed into Law via the 1865 Act the term/reference to "Their Former Right" would be re-affirmed per section 9.  

I am sorry for the paragraph as opposed to answering line by line item question but I am right in the middle of leaving.  I'll check back later to see if this helps, or possibly answers some of the specific questions  Where is the Grant: It is a restoration of an existing mining custom. But the grant seems to apply to all locators who discover/locate.  Even prior to the filing/locating docs/recording the location.  The patent is a further extention of the title right after certain conditions are met.
Additionally if you go to Bouviers Law Ditionary of the time it seems clear that the Grant has to do with possession and basic rules set in accordance with mining customs upon discovery/possession of a mineral location.  Now it makes sense to me that the Mineral Estate Grant is defined by that very custom of discovery, possession, and patent.   Again Sect 9 of the 1865 Law of Possession reaffirms the judicial affirmative to that Grant.

(1)......Sec 9--"Recovery".....restoration of their former right per mining customs/rules/districts.

(2) ......A locator of a valuable mineral deposite as specified.

(3)....... The right to utilize all the surface and sub-surface to extract the mineral deposite as specified.

(4) .......Possession/occupy.

(5).......1872 Act did not eliminate but rather reaffirms and strengthens the Grant. 

bejay



You are EXACTLY correct that what we are really seeing is a mere federalization of existing mining customs. In particular, we know that most of the Act of 1866 was influenced by the Mining Laws of the Grass Valley District. These customs also played a role in the Act of 1865 too.

Again, as with Hefty's critique, there is a bit more involved in Question 3, but I think I am going to accept "surface/subsurface" as acceptable since it does clearly cover what was granted in very simple terms.

With #4, again the grant is self initiating. To be technical, the act of merely deciding to accept the terms of the grant initiates it, but as you note, the acts of Possession and Occupation are very important.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1866



Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 102
Location: Jefferson Mining District

PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glindberg wrote:
#1 ) Sec 3 of 1866

#2) all US citizens and those whom have declared as such

#3)The right of possesion and ejoyment of all surfaces w/i lines of location, exclusive right to locators,tunnel owner rights,rights of co-owners

#4)locating, marking claim, filing appriopate paper work

#5) no it ammended it, section 16 states the rights are not impaired from existing acts



Well done on #2, #3 and #4. While you have neglected a few things (as did everyone), you are seeing the light that there is much more involved than mere "mineral rights". Refer back to the critiques for Hefty and BeJay and you can see a few that you missed and see a few that you brought up that nobody else saw. While your mention of "tunnel owner rights" is technically quite correct, it's important to point out that these rights largely originated from the Suttro Tunnel Act and some other lesser known mining legislations of the same period. We will save those for another day, but as I have said before, any interpretation of the Mining Law must be in para materia, that is, taken "altogether" as a body opposed to cherry-picking a piece here and there. So while these tunnel rights were not specifically part of the main bodies of legislation, they did become incorporated.

On Question #1, what you are pointing to is the provision for aquiring absolute title via patent. While the right to patent is a granted right, this is not the ultimate source of the grant. You can see the specific granting language in Secs 1 and 8 of the 1866, while the other sections largely describe the rights and property that were granted. As such, the mere fact that property is being conveyed is also evidence that a grant took place.

On Question #5, you are correct that the Act of 1872 amended the two previous acts and rightly so that Section 16 speaks to not impairing existing rights. Also, if you examine the act as a whole, what you find is that throughout the act, they are gradually reaffirming the contents of the two previous acts, often using clearer language to better define them.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> THE CLASSROOM All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum