Abbildungen der Seite


Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the this vein or deposit. With this explana. facts in the foregoing language, delivered tion of the reasons for the long delay in the the opiniou of the court.

decision of this case, we pass to the speThis and two kindred cases bave been cial matters in controversy. before us for consideration for some time. The questions presented by the plead. They have heen twice argued, the reargu- | ings to be tried were whether there was a ment having been ordered by the court of vein or lode within the territorial boundits own inotion; and on the second argu-aries of the placer; and, if so, whether it ment, at the like instance, very elaborate was a known vein or lode, within the and complete models, maps, and photu- meaning of section 2333. The plaintiff, to graphs were prepared by the respective maintain its crise, offered in evidence simparties and presented for our examina- | ply its patent and other matters of rection. The fact is there was an earnest in- ord, together with parol proof of "bound. quiry as to whether the court had not aries. By this record evidence it appeared erred in its prior and repeated ruling that that the application for the placer patent a known lode, as named in section 2333 of was made on the 13th of November, 1878; the Revised Statutes, 1 is something other that entry and payment were on the 21st than a located lode; and also whether, in of February, 1879; and thatthe patent was view of the disclosures made in this, as in issued on January 30, 1880. The location prior cases, of the existence of a body of certificate of the Goodell lode was dated mineral underlying a large area of coun- March 10 and recorded March 11, 1879, re. try in the Leadville mining district, whose citing a location on February 1, 1879. general horizontal direction, together After the introduction of this testimony with the sedimentary character of the the plaintiff rested, and by it a prima facie superior rock, indicated something more title to the whole placer claim was estabof the nature of a deposit like a coal bed lished. The location of the Goodell lode than of the vertical and descending fissure was some months after the application vein in which silver and gold are ordi. for the placer patent. The defendant, parily found, it did not become necessary to maintain its claim, offered the testimony to hold that the only* provisions of the of several witnesses,-testimony which statute under which title to any portion established beyond any doubt that in of this body of mineral, or the ground in 1877, and more than a year before any which it is situated, can be acquired, are proceedings were initiated with reference those with respect to placer claims. Of to the placer patent, the grantors of decourse, such conclusions would have com. fendant entered upon and ran a tunnel pelled a revising of some former npinions, some 400 feet in length into and through and have wrought great changes in the that ground which afterwards was patstatus of mining claims in that district. ented as the placer tract, and that in run. Because of this we have been very careful, ning such tunnel they intersected and and the investigations in these directions | crossed three veins, one of which was have been earnest and protracted. It thereafter, and in 1879, located as the would serve no useful purpose to state all Goodell vein or lode. The rein thus the arguments which have been advanced crossed and disclosed by the tunnel was and considered by us. It is enough to from 75 to 78 feet from its mouth, of announce the results. Ourconclusions are, about 15 inches in width, with distinct first, in respect to the matter of the walls of porphyry on either side,-a vein known vein, that the reasons so clearly whose existence was obvious to even a stated by Mr. Justice Field, speaking for casual inspection by any one passing the court in the case of Noyes v. Mantle, through the tunnel. 127 U. S. 348, 353, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132, are With this general statement, we notice unanswerable, and forbid au adjudication the two or three matters which are the that the term “known vein" is to be special objects of contention; and, first, taken as synonymous with “located vein," it is said that the court erred in giving ind compel a reiteration of the declara- this instruction: tion heretofore made,—that the term re- “If there was a lode in that territory, fers to a vein or lode whose existence is and it was known to Moyer as an exist. known, as contra distinguished from one ing lode at this time,-and by this time I which has been appropriated by location: mean the 1st of February, 1879, or at the and, as to the other matter, that the title time these locations were said to have te portions of this horizontal vein or de- | been made,-and the lode had been preposit, “blanket vein," as it is generally viously discovered by the locators of these called, may be acquired under the sections claims, then the placer patent is not suffi. concerning veins, lodes, etc. The fact cient to convey them. In other words, tl:at so many patents have been obtained they are excepted by the terms of this under these sections, and that so many ap. statute from the provisions of the patplications for patents are still pending, is ent, and the owners of that title now a strong reason against a new and con- bave no right to them." trary ruling. That which has been ac. In other words, the court ruled that if cepted as law and acted upon by that the vein was known to the placer pat. mining community for such a length of entee at or before entry and payment, al. time should not be adjudged wholly a though not known at the time of the mistake, and put entirely aside, because of application for patent, it was excepted difficulties in the application of some from the properts conveyed by the patminor provisions to the peculiarities of ent. Into this ruling the court was

doubtless led by the language of the patFor the text of this section in full, see the ent, which in terms exempts all veins or dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Field, post, 550. lodes known to exist at the date thereof,

• 402 404

-that is, the date of the issue of the pat- nore, that it was a long tunnel, running ent. In ibis respect there was error. The far into the earth. It was in mining time at which the vein or lode within the ground, as all this territory was believed placer must be known in order to be ex- to be, and therefore an excavation likely cepted from the grant of the patent is, by to disclose veins. As an applicant for å section 2333, the time at which the appli-placer patent was chargeable with notice cation is inade. Its language is: “An of the existence of the tunnel, so, also, application for a patent for such placer was he chargeable with notice of what claim, wbich does not include an applica- ever a casual inspection of that tunnel tion for the vein or lode claim, shall be would disclose. He would not be heard construed as a conclusive declaration that to say, “I did not enter and examine this the claimant of the placer claim has no tunnel, and therefore know nothing of the right of possession of the vein or lode veins apparent in it.” The government claim.” Mining Co. v. Reynolds, 124 U. S. does not permit a person to thus sbut his 374, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598; U. $. v. Mining eyes and buy. If there be a vein or lode Co., 128 U. S. 673, 680, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. within the ground, it is entitled to double 195. There was therefore a technical er- price per acre for it and the adjacent 50 ror in this instruction of the court, but feet, and, with such interest in the price one which obviously wrought no injury to be paid, it rightfully holds any applito the substantial rights of the plaintiff, cant for a placer patent chargeable with because there is not a scintilla of testi- all that would be disclosed by a casual mony, a suggestion even, that between inspection of the surface of the ground or the year 1877 and the time of entry and of such a tunnel. The applicant must be payment there was any work done or adjudged to have known that which discovery made on the placer ground in others knew, and which he would have respect to the Goodell lode or in the tun- | ascertained if he had discharged fairly his nel. Everything that was done had been duty to the government. Surely under done in 1877; everything that was known the testimony the jury was warranted in at the time of the patent was known in finding that this was a known vein. 1877; 80 tbat the error of date in the * Another question is whether this was* charge was one not affecting the sub- such a vein bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, stantial rights of the plaintiff. If at the lead, or other valuable deposit as that a time of the entry there was a known vein, discoverer could obtain title thereto unthere was the same vein and the sane der sections 2320 and 2325. It is undoubtknowledge in 1877, and before the appli- | edly true that not every crevice in the cation.

rocks, nor every outcropping on the sur. The second matter is this: Was there face, which suggests the possibility of a known vein at the time of the applica. / mineral, or which may, on subsequent tion for a patent, within the meaning of exploration, be found to develop ore of section 2333? It was not then a located great value, can be adjudged a known vein or lode, and the case was evidently vein or lode, withiu the meaning of the tried by the plaintiff upon the theory that statute. As said by this court in the case unless it was a located vein it was not a of L'. S. v. Mining Co., 128 U. S. 673, 683, 9 known vein; but that, as we have seen, Sup. Ct. Rep. 195: “It is not enough that is not a correct interpretation of the stat. there may have been some indications, by ute. It is enough that it be known, and outcroppings on the surface, of the exist. in this respect, to come within the intent ence of lodes or veins of rock in place bear. of the statute, it must either have been ing gold or silver or other metal, to jusknown to the applicant for the placer tify their designation as 'known' veins or patent or known to the community gen. lodes. To meet that designation the erally, or else disclosed by workings, and lodes or veins must be clearly ascertained, obvious to any one making a reasonable and be of such extent as to render the and fair inspection of the premises for the land more valuable on that account, and purpose of obtaining title from the gov- justify their exploitation. And yet in ernment. The proof abundantly estab- the case of Mining Co. v. Cheesman, 116 U. lishes that within the last description the S. 529, 536, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481, this court vein was a known vein. The placer tract sustained an instruction as to what conwas a small one of 56 acres. The tunnel stitutes a lode or vein, given in these ran 400 feet underneath its surface. At words: “To determiine whether a lode or its mouth there was a large dump of vein exists, it is necessary to define those earth taken from it. No one liad a right terms; and, as to that, it is enough to to enter that ground as placer mining say that a lode or vein is a body of min. ground, unless he had wade such an inspec. eral or mineral-bearing rock within detion as to enable him to make affidavit fined boundaries in the general mass of tbat it was adapted to such mining. No the mouutain. In this definition the ele. examination could have been made with- ments are the body of mineral or mineral. out disclosing the existence of this tun- bearing rock and the boundaries. With pel. That was a fact upon the surface, either of these things well established, obvious to the most casual inspection. very slight evidence may be accepted as No one could be heard to say that he had to the existence of the other. A body of examined that ground in order to ascertain mineral or mineral-bearing rock in the that it was suitable for placer mining, general mass of the mountain, so far as and in sucb examination had not discovo | it may continue unbroken and without ered the existence of this tunnel. It was interruption, may be regarded as a lode, not a little excavation, with a few shovel- whatever the boundaries may be. In the fuls of dirt at its entrance. The pile of existence of such body, and to the extent dirt was eridence which no one could ig- of it, boundaries are implied. On the


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

jority of such integral definite part must | firmative, three refused to vote, and thea
attend, aliter there is no elective assembly, chair declared"the ordinance passed. The*
but a majority of those present when le-court held, Chief Justice Doe delivering
gally met will bind the rest." In 1 Dill. the opinion, that the amendment to the
Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 283, the rule is thus charter was legally adopted by the board
stated : And, as a general rule, it may be of aldermen. He said: “The exercise of
stated that not only where the corporate law-making power is not stopped by the
power resides in a select body, as a city mere silence and in action of some of the
council, but where it has been delegated law.makers who are present. An arbi.
to a committee or to agents, then, in the trary, technical, and exclusive method of
absence of special provisions otherwise, a ascertaining whether a quorum is pres-
minority of the select body, or of the com ent, operating to prevent the performance
mittee or agents, are powerless to bind of official duty and obstruct the business
the majority or do any valid act. If all of government, is no part of our common
the members of the select body or commit- law. The statute requiring the presence
tee, or if all the agents are assembled, or of four aldermen does not mean that, in
if all have been duly notified, and the nii the presence of four, a majority of the
nority refuse or neglect tu meet with the votes cast may not be enough. The jour.
others, a majority of those present may nal properly shows how many members
act, provided those present constitute a were there when the vote was taken by
majority of the whole number. In other yeas and days; there was no difficulty in
words, in such case, a major part of the ascertaining and recording the fact; and
whole is necessary to constitute a quorum, the requirement of a quorum at that time
and a majority of the quorum may act. was not intended to furnish a means of
If the major part withdraw so as to leave suspending the legislative power and
no quorum, the power of the minority to duty of a quorum. No illegality appears
act is, in general, considered to cease. in the adoption of the amendment.
This declaration has been quoted approv Summing up this matter, this law is
ingly by this court in the case of Brown v. found in the secretary of state's office,
District of Columbia, 127_U. S. 579, 586, 8 properly authenticated. If we appeal to
Sup. Ct. Rep. 1314. In 2 Kent, Comm. 293, the journal of the house, we find that a
the author draws a distinction between majority of its members were present
what is necessarily a meetivg of a repre. when the bill passed, a majority creating
sentative and a constituent body in these by the constitution a quoruin, with author.
words: “There is a distinction taken ity to act upon any measure; that the
between a corporate act to be done by presence of that quorum was determined
a select and definite body, as by a in accordance with a valid rule thereto.
board of directors, and one to be per fore adopted by the house; and that of
formed by the constituent members. In that quorum a majority voted in favor of
the latter case, a majority of those who the bill. It therefore legally passed the
appear may act; but in the former, a ma. house, and the law, as fuund in the office
jority of the definite body must be present, of the secretary of state, is beyond chal-
and then a majority of the quorum may lenge.
decide." See, also, Ex parte Willcocks, 7 With reference to the other question:
Cow. 402; Com. v. Green, 4 Whart. 531; The opinion of the circuit court seemed
State v. Green, 37 Ohio St. 227; Launtz v. to be that the act cast upon the secretary
People, 113 Ill. 137; Gas Co. v. City of of the treasury a special duty of classifica-
Rushville, 121 Ind. 206, 23 N. E. Rep. 72; tion in all cases of the importation of
Gosling v. Veley, 7 Adol. & E. (N. S.) 406, 4 worsted cloths, and that unless he so
H. L. Cas. 679.

acted in any particular case the duty reIn State v. Deliesseline, 1 McCord, 52, it mained as it was prior to the passage of is said: "For, according to the principle the act. We quote its language: “This of all the cases referred to, a quorum pos. act, however, proceeds upon an entirely sesses all the powers of the whole body; novel theory. It provides expressly for a a majority of which quorum inust, of classification in direct non-conformity to course govern.

The constitutions the facts. It authorizes an officer of the of this state and the United States declare government who may find an import to that a majority shall be a quoruin to do be in fact an article which under the tariffe business, but a majority of that quorum |*laws pays one rate of duty to call it some.. are sufficient to decide the most important thing else, which it is not, in order to enquestion.

able the revenue officers to lery upon it a in Wells v. Rahway Co., 19 N. J. Eq. rate of duty which that other article, which 402, we find this language: "A majority it is not, pays.

I do not mean by of the directors of a corporation, in the thattusuggest for one moment that, under absence of any regulation in the charter, the pliraseology of this act, it is the duty of is a quorum, and a inajority of such quo. the secretary of the treasury to himself exrum, when conveneil, can do any act amine the packages of goods, to handle or within the power of the directors.

see their contents; but, having been inAnd in Attorney General y. Shepard, 62 formed and advised as to the facts in the N. H. 393,384, the question was whether an same way in which he is informed and ad. amendment to a city charter had been vised upon any facts upon which he is reproperly adopted by the board of alder. quired to pass, by the examination and men. All the members of the board were report of such trustworthy subordinates present but one. The ordinance was duly as he may select, the final classification of read and put to a vote, and declared by the particular articles is one to he made the chair to be passed. The yeas and pays by him." were then called; three voted in the af. We do not so construe the act. We un

derstand it rather as a declaration by it existed, and as it was pressed upon the atten. congress as to the construction to be tion of the legislative body, while the act was placed upon that portion of the act of

under consideration. 1883 which refers to imported woolen

4. It being historically true that the Amer. cloths. It was

ican people are a religious people, as shown by an act suggested by the

the religious objects expressed by the original contest then pending in the courts, and

grants and charters of the colonies, and the recwhich was finally decided adversely to ognition of religion in the most solemn acts of the government in the care of Seeberger their history, as well as in the constitutions of v. Cahn, 137 U. S. 95, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28, the states and the nation, the courts, in construin which it was held by this court that ing statutes, sbould not impute to any legisla"cloths popularly known as 'diagonals,'

ture a purpose of action against religion. and known in trade as 'worsteds,' and St. p. 332) prohibits the importation of any."

5. Although the alien contract labor law (23 composed mainly of worsted, but with a

foreigners under contract to perform “labor or small proportion of shoddy and of cot. service of any kind,” yet it does not apply to ton, are subject to duty as a manufacture one who comes to this country under contract to of worsted, and not as a manufacture of

enter the service of a church as its rector. 86 wool, under the act of March 3, 1883, c. Fed. Rep. 303, reversed. 121." The form of expression used in the

In error to the circuit court of the Unit. act may be novel, but the intent of con ed States for the southern district of New gress is quite clear. Recognizing the fact York. Reversed. that the secretary of the treasury is the Seaman Viller, for plaintiff in error. head of the financial department of the

Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United government, that to him, as its chief ad.

States. ministrative official, is given the supervision of the tariff and all the collections Mr. Justice BREwer delivered the opin. thereunder, it directs him to classify all ion of the court. worsted cloths as woolen cloths, and it Plaintiff in error is a corporation duly gives to him no discretion. He may not organized and incorporated as a religious classify some worsteds as woolens and society under the laws of the state of others as not. There is given no choice or | New York. E. Walpole Warren was, pri. selection, but it is the imperative direction or to September, *1887, an alien residing in* of congress to him, as the cbief adıninis. England. In that month the plaintiff in trative officer in the collection of duties, error made a contract with him, by which to place all worsted cloths, by whatever he was to remove to the city of New name properly known or known to the York, and enter into its service as rector trade, within the category of woolen and pastor; and, in pursuance of such cloths, and, of course, if placed within that contract, Warren did so remove and enter category, or, using the familiar language of upon such service. It is claimed by the

the tariff, if “classified as woolen cloths,” United States that this contract on the subject to the duty imposed on such part of the plaintiff in error was forbidcloths. If action were necessary by the den by chapter 164, 23 St. p. 332; and an secretary of the treasury to put this action was commenced to recover the penAct into force, which we think it was not, alty prescribed by that act. The circuit such action was taken by the circular let. court held that the contract was within ter of May 13, 1890, from the treasury de. the prohibition of the statute, and renpartment to all customs officers, publish- dered judgment accordingly, (36 Fed. Rep. ing the act for the information and guid- 303,) and the single question presented for ance of the public.

our determination is whether it erred in Our conclusion, therefore, is that the that conclusion. act was legally passed, and that by its The first section describes the act forown terms, and irrespective of any action bidden, and is in these words: by the secretary of the treasury, the “Be it enacted by the senute and house duties on worsted cloths were to be such of representatives of the United States of

were placed by the act of 1883 on America, in congress assembled, that from woolen cloths.

and after the passage of this act it shall The judgment of the circuit court will be unlawful for any person, company, be reversed, and the case remanded for partnership, or corporation, in any manfurther proceedings in accordance with whatsoever, to prepay the transporthis opinion.

tation, or in any way assist or encourage

the importation or migration, of any alien (143 U. S. 457)

or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into RECTOR, ETC., OF HOLY TRINITY CAURCH the United States, its territories, or the v. UNITED STATES.

District of Columbia, under contract or (February 29, 1992.)

agreement, parol or special, express or imCONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES—Alien Contract LA- plied, made previous to the inportation BOR LAW,

or migration of such alien or aliens, for1. It is within the power of courts to declare eigner or foreigners, to perform labor or that a thing which is within the letter of a stato

service of any kind in the United States, ute is not governed by the statute, because not its territories, or the District of Columwithin its spirit or the intention of its makers. bia.”

2. While the title of a statute cannot be used It must be conceded that the act of the to add to or take from the body thereof, yet, in

corporation is within the letter of this seccases of doubt, it may be referred to as a help to

tion, for the relation of rector to his church the interpretation. 3. In construing a doubtful statute the court

is one of service, and implies labor on the will consider the evil which it was desigued to

one side with compensation on the other. remedy, and for this purpose will look into con Not only are the general words “labor" temporaneous events, including the situation as and “service” both used, but also, as it





tors, the date of location, the number of the 24th of April following. It extended feet in lengtb claimed on each side of the 400 feet, but it disclosed within it only center of the disco very shait, and the gen- veins of decomposed porphyry and mangaeral course and direction of the claim, and nese iron. The statement that it interthat in said location certificate and upon sected and crossed three veins is only cor. the location stake the same was called the rect in that they were veins of tbat cbar. "Thomas Starr Lode,” and that after- acter. There was no vein or lode of gold wards, by various mesne conveyances, or silver bearing rock found in the tunnel, the property became vested in the defend. and there is an erroneous impression conant. No evidence was offered on the trial veyed by the opinion of the court in that with reference to this Thomas Starr respect. The material evidence in the reclode set up in the second defense, and no ord as to what was found in the tunnel certificate of its location was produced; it is given in the pote below, from which it niay therefore be considered as out of the will appear, as stated above, that only case. The contrurersy relates only to the veins of decomposed porphyry and mangaGoodell lode claim set up in the first de- nese iron were found there. No gold or fense. The location certificate of this lode silver was discovered in it, except in one claim bears date on the 10th day of March, instance, and then merely a trace of golde 1870, and recites that the claim was locat- at about 75 feet from the mouth of the ed on the lot of February, 1879. The aver- tunnel, from which only three-quarters of ment that its original locators, on the 1st unce was obtained. This discovery of February, 1879, went upon the premises did not establish the existence “ of a lode, and sunk a sbait and run a tunnel there. | vein, or deposit of mineral in quartz or on, which uncovered and exposed the other rock in place carrying carbonates of vein, lode, and deposit, and that they lead and silver," as averred in the answer thereupon proceeded to locate the same, of the defendant. It did not of itself conwas not supported by the evidence pro- stitute a vein or lode in gold or silver duced. The location of the claim was not bearing rock; it was loose gold, and was preceded by the discovery of the existence not sufficient, of itself, to induce further of the precious_metals within it. The work upon the tunnel, or even to lead to a statute of the United States respecting location of a mining claim in it. From mining claims upon veins orlodes of quartz the completion of the tunnel up to the or other rock in place bearing gold and time when this case was on trial, extend. silver, declares that“ no location of a min-ing over eight years and a half, no work ing claim shall be made until the discov- was done upon the tunnel, nor was any ery of the vein or lode within the limits of attempt made to use it, or to develop any the claim located.” Rev. St. § 2320. One pretended mine in it. By the law there of the locators, John Hayes, was esam- must have been a location upon the vein ined as a witness, and testified that he in it, if there was one, before any right to helped the surveyor to survey the lode such vein could be initiated, and, had such claims-the Goodell and Gardner claims- location been made, the right thns ac. and drive down the stakes; that after- quired was lost and forfeited by abandonwards he filed the certificate of location; ment years before this action was comthat he knew the discovery shafts of the menced. But, as I shall show hereafter, claims, and had been in them; that there the mere indicatiou or presence of gold or was no discovery of any vein or lode of silver is not sufficient to establish the exvaluable mineral deposits within them; istence of a lode. The mineral must exist and that those shafts were sunk in 1879. in such quantities as to justify expenditure And the tunnel allegeil to have been then of money for the development of the mine run was commenced and completed years and the extraction of the mineral. It before.

would create surprise among miners to On the 11th of March, 1879, the locators | be told that if a trace of loose gold, such filed with the county clerk and recorder as is shown bere, was found at any one of Lake county-the county within which spot in a tunnel leading to a placer claim, the alleged lode lies-a location certificate it would establish the existence of a vein of the lode claim, and on the 13th of April, or lode in the placer claim, and form the 1881, the defendant, which had succeeded basis of a proceeding to despoil a purto their interest, made application for a chaser from the patentee, years after the patent for the same. The plaintiff below purchase, of a large portion of its mining and in this court, the Iron Silver Mining property. Company, filed in the land-office its ad- Evidence was also offered, against the verse claim to the application for a patent objection of the plaintiff, to show that under assumed conformity with the pro- there were other lodes in the vicinity of visions of section 2325 of the Revised Stat. | the placer claim of the plaintiff, and also utes, and this action is brought by that of the placer claim of Wells and Mover; company to determine, as between the and also that parties in the neighborhoud parties, the right to the possession of the believed—not that they knew-that there land embracing this alleged lode, in pur- was a vein or lode lying noder those suance of section 2326. The case was tried placer claims, and also of conversations before a jury, and the only direct evidence in 1877 with one Stevens, who acquired bis offered to show the existence of a known interest by purchase with one Leiter from vein or lode bearing gold or silver within the patentee more than a year after the the placer claim was contained in the tes- patent was issued, as to his opinion of the timony as to the tunnel run, called the existence of mineral at a place where he “Mike Tunnel," and discoveries made in it. had at the time men at work, and “under. It was shown that the tunnel was com- lying all the ground there;” but it was nienced in January, 1877, and completed on not shown that the place thus loosely des.

« ZurückWeiter »