McCutchen

(after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] Preliminarily, I feel constrained to suggest that I see no reason *579 to depart at all from either the reasons adopted or the conclusions reached heretofore in the hearing herein on the question of the appointment of a receiver. 234 Fed. 702 . A consideration of the facts in the case, as they have been presented in detail on the trial, serves, but to confirm the conclusions, announced in that opinion, that defendants were not diligently engaged in the prosecution of work leading to a “discovery” on September 27, 1909, the date of the Taft withdrawal.

Under the laws of the United States, as the same have been enacted from time to time and as they have been construed by the courts, I think it may be safely asserted that one who enters upon the public domain and “locates” land as for its mineral content, ás oil land, though he may erect appropriate monuments, and post and properly file location notices, if he makes no “discovery” of mineral, acquires no rights of any nature against the government or any private individual, save the right to proceed with diligence to effect an actual discovery of mineral, gas, or oil. He may remain out of…