which express in less than the highest terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they represent.

It is not necessary that a national park should have a large area. The element of size is of no importance as long as the park is susceptible of effective administration and control.

You should study existing national parks with the idea of improving them by the addition of adjacent areas which will complete their scenic purposes or facilitate administration. The addition of the Teton Mountains to the Yellowstone National Park, for instance, will supply Yellowstone's greatest need, which is an uplift of glacierbearing peaks; and the addition to the Sequoia National Park of the Sierra summits and slopes to the north and east, as contemplated by pending legislation, will create a reservation unique in the world, because of its combination of gigantic trees, extraordinary canyons, and mountain masses.

In considering projects involving the establishment of new national parks or the extension of existing park areas by delimitation of national forests, you should observe what effect such delimitation would have on the administration of adjacent forest lands, and, wherever practicable, you should engage in an investigation of such park projects jointly with officers of the Forest Service, in order that questions of national park and national forest policy as they affect the lands involved may be thoroughly understood.

Cordially, yours,

Mr. STEPHEN T. MATHER,

FRANKLIN K. LANE,

Secretary.

Director, National Park Service.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE IN REFERENCE TO THE CAMERON MIN= ING LOCATIONS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., May 12, 1919.

UNITED STATES VS. RALPH H. CAMERON ET AL., INVOLVING CHARGES AGAINST MINING CLAIMS IN GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK. MOTION TO REOPEN DENIED; DECISION AFFIRMED.

REGISTER AND RECEIVER, Phoenix, Ariz.

SIRS: This case is before the office on appeal filed June 28, 1918, from your decision of May 25, 1918, and a motion to reopen and remand the case for the taking of testimony, filed with the appeal.

Proceedings were directed by office letters "FS" dated in March and April, 1913, and directing adverse proceedings against the following mining locations, to wit: Banjo, Millionaire, Sentinel Treasure, Peg Leg, Hill Top, Sunflower, Limestone, Goldenola, Ida May and Buttinsky, lode claims, Cheyenne, Dakotah, Bannock, Apache, Folly, Hermit, and Gorge placer claims, alleged to have been located in 1906 and 1907 by Ralph W. Cameron et al., and embracing lands in T. 31 N., Rs. 2 and 3 E., G. and S. R. M., and within the Tusayan National Forest and the Grand Canyon National Monument. By said letter you were directed to give notice that a forest ranger charged that the land covered by said locations is nonmineral in character, that a discovery of mineral had not been made to support the alleged locations, and that the locations were not made in good faith for the purpose of developing mining proposition, but were made for speculative purposes in connection with the use of the land for trade or business.

Notice of the charges having issued on May 19, 1913, answers were filed by claimant Ralph H. Cameron on June 19, 1913, denying the charges and asking for hearings. Hearings were set for October 7, 1913, but were continued to various dates until August 10, 1915. By stipulation the cases were consolidated at the hearing. On the day set for the hearing a special agent, an assistant to the solicitor, Department of Agriculture, and the Chief of Field Division appeared in support of the charges, and the defendants were represented by counsel. Upon advice that the defendants had filed in the United States Court a suit to enjoin the Land Department from proceeding further against the claims, the hearing was continued until August 12, 1915, on which date, by agreement of the parties, the testimony of witnesses produced in support of the charges was taken and a number of depositions in support of the charges filed. Orders of continuance were then entered from time to time because of the procedings in court, until November 19, 1915, when the defendants declining to offer evidence, the hearing was closed.

By said decision of May 26, 1918, you found that the locations were made primarily and conclusively for speculative advantages, that no valid discovery of mineral had been made, and that the land is essentially nonmineral, and recommended that the necessary procedure to secure the cancellation of the locations and restoration of the land to the National Monument be taken.

The appeal alleges error of law in your findings, in that jurisdiction over the matters existed exclusively in the courts, and the motion to reopen the case for the purpose of taking testimony is made a part of the appeal. In this motion it is alleged that the claims contain large quantities of valuable minerals, particularly platinum.

The motion to reopen the hearing has been supplemented by a request filed in this office April 11, 1919, by local counsel for the United States Platinum Company, the alleged owner of the claims, and with whom said Cameron is associated, with which were filed affidavits of said Cameron and of Charles H. Kerk,

of Malvern, Pennsylvania, who represents himself to be the secretary and treasurer of the J. Bishop & Company Platinum Works of the same place, and a number of copies of assay certificates purported to have been made by J. Bishop & Co. and others. With these papers is a letter signed by said Cameron and dated March 29, 1919, in which he states that he has disposed of his interest in the Millionaire, Sentinel Treasure, Peg Leg, Sunflower, Limestone, Goldenola, Ida May, Buttinsky, and Hill Top lode claims, and the Hermit, Gorge, and Folly placer claims to one C. Frank Doebler, who he understands has conveyed to the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, and that he has no interest in said claims or in the proceedings involving them, and disclaims any interest therein. His motion to reopen the case for the introduction of evidence applies therefore only to the Apache, Cheyenne, Bannock, and Dakotah placer locations and the Banjo lode location. The motion to reopen is predicated on the allegation that the claims contain valuable platinum deposits, because of which they were purchased by the United States Platinum Company, and the copies of assay certificates have been filed in support of the allegation that the land contains such deposits. The movant also urges in support of his motion that at the time the hearing was held he was proceeding in the court in good faith and upon reasonable grounds to determine the jurisdiction of the Land Department over the subject matter, and further, that after the court had decided against his contention that the Land Department was without jurisdiction, the decision was rendered by you without giving opportunity to him to offer evidence in his behalf.

At the hearing a forest ranger testified as to the situs of the various locations and the physical characteristics of the area involved; an associate geologist of the United States Geological Survey, a forest supervisor, a mineral inspector of this office and a mineral inspector of the Forest Service, testified as to the geology and mineralogy of the lands embraced in the claims, and the deposition of a practical miner on the same features was introduced. Other depositions of chemists and assistants as to the result of assays of samples submitted to them of materials taken from the land by the witnesses were also filed. The testimony of these witnesses indicates that an unusually thorough examination of the land had been made, samples taken and tested carefully, and amply sus tained your decision. The results of the assays made of samples taken from the claims showed no appreciable values in gold, silver, or copper, and the platinum content ascertained was practically nil. Considering the evidence in the records, all of which was adduced in support of the charges, as aforesaid, the charges that the land is nonmineral in character and that no discovery of mineral had been made on any of said claims, have been established thereby. It is not necessary, therefore, to consider the charge questioning the bona fides of the locators.

Considering the motion to reopen the hearing, it appears from the record that notice of the hearing was given by your office on June 18, 1915, setting the same for August 10, 1915, before the register and receiver; that on August 5, 1915, Cameron filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the Land Department, and on the day of the hearing moved for a continuance on account of absent witnesses. He also insisted on his plea to the jurisdiction, citing in its support a decision rendered by the department October 24, 1914, known as the J. P. Nichols and Cy Smith case, wherein it was held that the Land Department was without jurisdiction to proceed against mining locations where no application for patent was pending. On the same day he filed a bill in equity before the United States district judge at Prescott, seeking to enjoin the register and receiver from proceeding with the hearing. On being advised of the court proceedings, the hearing was continued until August 12, 1915, at which time the parties appeared, the motion for a continuance was denied and the demurrer to the jurisdiction of the Land Department overruled, and after the evidence in support of the charges had been completed, as aforesaid, the hearing was continued from time to time until after the district court had denied the application for an injunction. It appears that the defendants filed an appeal from the decree of the court, but that the same was not prosecuted. Instead, on December 8, 1915, said Cameron filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the register and receiver of your office. This proceeding resulted in a decision in favor of the applicant on March 15, 1916, and an appeal having been taken to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, the lower court was reversed and the jurisdiction of the Land Department sus

tained by decision dated November 14, 1916 (46 L. D., 195). By decision dated February 6, 1917 (48 L. D., 20), the decision in the Nichols and Smith case of October 24, 1913, was reversed and the authority of the Land Department to inquire into and determine the validity of mining locations in national forests, notwithstanding the locators have not applied for patent, was sustained. The decision of the Court of Appeals became final, no appeal therefrom having been taken. The movant alleges that he failed to take an appeal through mistake of his counsel and that it was his purpose to appeal therefrom.

Action on the contest record having been suspended by order of this office of December 13, 1915, because of said suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, after the decision of the Court of Appeals had become final, by office letter "FS" of February 11, 1918, the suspension was removed and you were directed to proceed with the case. The movant complains that this action was taken without notice to him, but since the hearing had been closed, as aforesaid, there was no reason for giving the defendants notice unless the case was to be reopened for the taking of further evidence, which was not contemplated. There was then pending no application for reopening the hearing. In his affidavit filed with the supplemental showing in support of the motion to reopen the hearing, the defendant Cameron alleges that about 16 years ago Dr. C. T. Hennig examined the deposits on the claims and took samples and reported that they contained platinum; that in 1917 five samples were taken from the claims and shipped to the J. Bishop & Company Platinum Works where they were analyzed and gave returns of from 1.70 to 2.83 ounces of platinum per ton; that in 1917 J. M. Boutwell, an eminent mining engineer, took samples from the property which were assayed by said J. Bishop & Company, six of which averaged 0.344, two 0.400, seven 1.452, and the highest 2.400 ounces per ton of platinum; also in 1917 P. Overfield, a mining man, took three samples from the property which were assayed by said J. Bishop & Company and gave results of 0.30, 0.26, and 0.24 ounces of platinum per ton; that in 1918 A. C. Simkins, a mining engineer, took samples from the property which were analyzed by said J. Bishop & Company and which gave results as high as 0.30 ounces of platinum per ton; that in the summer and fall of 1917 said J. M. Boutwell and the affiant spent altogether seven weeks on the property and took in the neighborhood of 400 samples, part of which were sent to different chemists and assayers. Copies of purported assay certificates of these samples are filed. Of these that of said J. Bishop & Company show results of from 0.233 to 2.400 ounces of platinum per ton, Smith, Emery & Company show the highest as 0.0216 of an ounce of platinum per ton, while a large majority of the something less than 300 samples analyzed show "nil" or trace". A certificate showing 38 samples assayed by Van Schulz and Lowe, of Denver, show no platinum in all but one sample, which gives 0.17 ounce per ton. Copy of a certificate which appears to be by the General Engineering Company, of Salt Lake City, giving returns of Smith, Emery & Company and Black & Deason of two samples furnished by said Boutwell show 0.027 or less ounce of platinum per ton. Another certificate of the J. Bishop & Company Platinum Works shows platinum in practically all of the 38 samples assayed, ranging from 0.05 to 0.20 ounces per ton, or an average of probably about 0.10 ounce per ton. Another certificate of the said company of 70 samples assayed shows one result of 2.3 ounces and the remainder either "blank" or "trace". Another certificate of 36 samples by the same company shows one result of 7.07 ounces, one of 0.16, four of 0.14, and some lesser results, and a number of traces and blanks. statement of the results obtained from the samples furnished by said Boutwell in 1917 and 1918 shows that only J. Bishop & Company were able to obtain appreciable platinum results, ranging from 2.400 ounces per ton down to nothing, the great majority showing nothing. This list includes over 300 samples. Counsel for the movant calls attention to the difference between the results obtained by the assayers, especially those of Ledoux and Company of New York, whose assays were introduced as evidence at the hearing, and those obtained by J. Bishop & Company, and filed an affidavit by Charles H. Kerk of the J. Bishop & Company Platinum Works, in which it is asserted that the platinum can not be obtained by gravity concentration, the ordinary method of analyzing for this mineral, and that his company has worked out processes for the recovery of platinum in the deposits in question which he believes makes material containing as low as 0.20 ounces per ton commercially profitable to mine, that in making the assays they use the most approved and accurate process for getting the actual platinum content, that his experience and the

A

experiences of his company has proved that the usual methods of assayers will not work entirely successful with the ores from these claims, and that the method used by him was devised after failure to recover platinum by the usual methods. The showing of platinum in the claims made by the movant in support of his motion rests entirely upon the results obtained by said Bishop & Company, and is contradicted by the results obtained by Smith, Emery & Company, Ledoux & Company, Van Schulz & Lowe, and Black & Deason, of Salt Lake City. In addition a number of assays have been made by the U. S. Geological Survey. A report dated February 24, 1919, by F. L. Ransome of that bureau has been furnished by the director. In this Dr. Ransome reports that he made some examination in the summer of 1918 on the claims, carefully choosing two samples as representative of the alleged ore, each of which he divided into three parts, one being assayed by the Bureau of the Mint, one by the Bureau of Standards, and the third in the laboratory of the United States Geological Survey. Only a very inconsequential amount of platinum was found by the assayers. In the conclusion of his report Dr. Ransome says:

As a result of these investigations it may be safely stated that the supposed platinum deposits in the Grand Canyon do not contain platinum. Certainly not enough to be of any value. The claim that the platinum is present in some form that would prevent Its detection by the various methods in the three Government laboratories mentioned may be dismissed as an absurdity. A metal in colloidal solution is merely in such a very fine state of division that it remains in suspension in a clear or opalescent liquid. Its chemical properties, however, are not changed by transformation to the colloidal state, and there is no difficulty in precipitating the metal from a colloidal solution by using the proper treatment.

In connection with the data filed with the motion to reopen the hearing the Director of the United States Geological Survey has supplied a signed copy of a report of John M. Boutwell, made under date of March 18, 1919, to the United States Platinum Company, in which he states that he had studied the ground geologically, the possible ore-bearing formations having been systematically sampled, 275 samples taken and assayed in duplicate or triplicate, special chemical work done and duplicate concentration tests made; that in all this work the utmost practicable endeavor had been made according to the best known practice to secure correct results as a basis for ascertaining the truth. Concluding he says

These results show that platinum ore has not been found in the ground examined in form and grade of commercial value.

In his letter transmitting the copy he states

This is the first and sole report on the Indian Gardens property in Grand Canyon, Ariz. This action is also in accordance with agreement between the owners and myself.

This report is given consideration especially because it was upon the representations of the movant that he had employed said Boutwell to make a thorough examination of the claims and desired to have the results of such examination considered, that action on the hearing record has been postponed for several months. In view of the representations as to the qualifications of this engineer and the character and extent of the investigation of the deposits on the claims made by him, his conclusion that the land contains no platinum values is convincing and entitled to great weight.

Considering the facts shown by the record as made up, the showing submitted by the movant, the published report of Dr. Ransome as information furnished by the U. S. Geological Survey, a coordinate bureau of the Department, and the report of said Boutwell, also furnished by that Bureau, no sufficient reason for reopening the hearing to allow additional evidence to be submitted and thereby delay final action on the case, is found. On the contrary, I am convinced that a further hearing would only delay final action in the case. The land is now within the Grand Canyon National Park, under Act of Congress approved February 26, 1919 (Public No. 277). The act creating the park does not prevent development of any valuable mineral deposits that may be discovered thereon, provision being made (Sec. 6),

That whenever consistent with the primary purposes of sald park, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, under general regulations, to be prescribed to him, to permit the prospecting, development, and utilization of the mineral resources of said park upon such terms and for specified period or otherwise, as he may deem to be for the best interest of the United States.