investigation  The Commissioner held that they were not subject to entry under the mining laws of the United States.



Lindley on Mines, third edition, ection 98, lays down the following rules for determining the question as to whether the character of the land is mineral or not:



The mineral character of the land is established when it is shown to have upon or within it such a substance as



a - Is recognized as mineral, according to its chemical compostion, by the standard authorities on the subject; or



b- Is classified as a mineral product in trade or commerce; or-



c - Such a substance other thand the mere surface which may be used for argicultural purposes economic value for use in trade, manufacture, the sciences, or in the mechanical or ornamental arts



In that connection he cites the similar decision of this Department in Pacific Coast Marble Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company (25 L.D. 233).

The material here claimed is not recoginized as a mineral by standard authorities on the subject.  It is not  classified as a mineral product in trade or commerce, nor does it possess economic value for use in rade, manufacture, the sciences, or in the mechanical or ornamental arts, therefore, under the fule as above laid down it is not a mineral within the meaning of the public land laws.



The case is anlogous in principle to that of South Dakota Mining Company v. McDonald (30 L.D., 357) in which it was held that, syllabus;