Mining claims are based upon an actual discovery of a locatable mineral.?ÿ Locating lode claims over mineralized veins often leads to small gaps and gores between the staked lode claims.?ÿ A convenient and easy way before 1900 to claim the remaining fractions was to stake a placer claim over the lodes. The Grassy Gulch Placer, located in Sec. 21, T. 15 S., R. 69 W. was one such example of this practice.?ÿ The claim was located on Jan. 1, 1899 and embraced a total of 46.26 acres before excluding the patented lode claims.?ÿ The net acreage was 5.577 acres and was comprised of seven discontiguous tracts.
Sketch showing the original township subdivision lines in blue and an undated resurvey showing the actual section lines in red.
Sketch showing previously patented lode claims in their "as staked" positions.
Outline of placer location for the Grassy Gulch Placer (magenta).
And here are the seven tracts that were to be included into the patent for the Grassy Gulch Placer.?ÿ Note that the Jeanette Lode, Sur. No. 10821 (dashed lines) is plotted, but never went to patent.
The ability to "sweep up" the remaining fractions in an area by means of a placer claim was prohibited in the DOI Land Decision, Grassy Gulch Placer Claim - Mining Claim Location Embracing Patented or Entered Lands (30 LD 191).?ÿ It was issued on July 25, 1900.?ÿ It is not a long decision.?ÿ The PDF file contains the two-page decision and the top half of the connected sheet for Sec. 21, T. 15 S., R. 69 W.
Because the decision ruled that a placer claim cound not have two or more discontiguous tracts, only Tract B was included in the patent for the Grassy Gulch Placer.?ÿ For completeness, a link to the GLO plat.
Two plots of the claims with the lode lines in red and discoveries shown as magenta circles.?ÿ The first image is the 2006 NAIP imagery.?ÿ The second image is the 2015 NAIP imagery.?ÿ It shows the eastern high wall of the open pit gold mine between Cripple Creek and Victor.
Edit to add:?ÿ Master Title Plat showing the other six tracts and the claim outlines.?ÿ Not a perfect fit between the two.
The Grassy Gulch Placer Claim Land Decision is not too surprising since placers are essentially surficial estates.?ÿ There was a brief 6 month period where the decision was misapplied to lode claims.?ÿ Instead of permitting the old, well established principle of overlapping lode claims being allowed so that each mining claimant would have their full right to the subsurface mineral estate, the GLO misinterpreted the DEL MONTE MINING & MILLING CO. v. LAST CHANCE MINING & MILLING CO. (171 U.S. 55), 1898 case.?ÿ Lode claims were to be staked like placer claims with no surface conflicts.
The Mattie B. Lode Claim, Sur. No. 13226 is one example of how lode claims were treated like placer claims.?ÿ The gray-filled area of the original plat shows what part of the claim was to be patented.
The amended plat was made in compliance with instructions from the Hon. Commissioner of the General Land Office?ÿ contained in letter "N" dated September 5th 1900.?ÿ In addition to "going around" the Great Mogul Lode, the Mattie B. was truncated where its lode line intersected the true end line of the Belle Abbie.?ÿ The amended plat does not show the Belle Abbie because its theoretical position was further east than its true position (i.e. where the Mattie B. was truncated).?ÿ Therefore, no need to show it.?ÿ
The other oddity is that while the Millington Lode Claim is senior to the Mattie B., Cor. No. 2 of the Mattie B. was not moved because the Millington had not been entered or patented at the time of the amended survey.?ÿ Therefore, the Millington was still under the jurisdiction of the GLO and the Mattie B. was allowed to overlap it!?ÿ ??ÿ
As I mentioned, this misapplication of placer rules to lode claims was short-lived.?ÿ The Hidee Gold Mining Co. Land Decision (30 LD 420) was published on Jan. 30, 1901 and modified the Grassy Gulch Placer Claim Land Decision.?ÿ Lode claims could overlap once again.?ÿ It also ruled that because lode claims were first and foremost a right to the subsurface, the patent could consist of multiple, discontiguous tracts.?ÿ The GLO plat shows in yellow the several discontiguous surficial tracts that were to be included in the patent.
?ÿ