SYS-CON Events announced today that "Internet Of @ThingsExpo" 2014 East will take place June 10-12, 2014, at the Javits Center in New York City, New York with an estimated attendance of 8,000 delegates from around the world.
@ThingsExpo is focused on the development of the rapidly emerging Internet of Things (IoT) market. @ThingsExpo will provide valuable information on the common issues and requirements to technology professionals who are creating a platform for the Internet of Things.
@ThingsExpo will feature three full days of technical sessions from a rock star conference faculty and the leading Internet of Things industry players. Things Expo is co-located with 14th international Cloud Expo®, and the second international WebRTC Summit critical M2M component of IoT.
Help plant your flag in the fast-expanding business opportunity that is Internet of Things: submit your speaking proposal today!
The submission process is 100% online and the submissions URL is here.
@ThingsExpo 2014 New York, June 10-12, at the Javits Center in New York City, New York, will feature technical sessions from a rock star conference faculty and the leading Cloud industry players in the world.
Sponsorship, exhibit, and keynote opportunities can be obtained from Carmen Gonzalez by email at events (at) sys-con.com, or by phone 201 802-3021.
Things Expo delegates can pre-register for Things Expo with $500+ savings here.
SYS-CON Media (www.sys-con.com) has since 1994 been connecting technology companies and customers through a comprehensive content stream at www.sys-con.com - featuring over forty focused subject areas, from Cloud Computing to Web Security - interwoven with market-leading full-scale conferences produced by SYS-CON Events. The company's internationally recognized brands include among others Cloud Expo® (www.CloudComputingExpo.com), Big Data Expo (http://BigDataExpo.net), Virtualization Conference & Expo (www.VirtualizationConference.com), DevOps Summit (http://DevOpsSummit.sys-con.com), WebRTC Summit (http://WebRTCSummit.net), Things Expo (http://www.ThingsExpo.com), Government IT Conference & Expo (www.GovITExpo.com), Cloud Computing Bootcamp (www.CloudComputingBootcamp.com), and UlitzerLive! New Media Conference & Expo (http://events.sys-con.com).


One of the best remaining limestone grasslands in the county with wildflowers and butterflies to add interest to your country walk.
With excellent views of the Avon Valley, this scrubby grassland has been maintained by grazing for centuries and supports a rich community of wildlife.
The open grassland is dotted with lime-loving plants such as twayblade, bee orchid, common-spotted orchid, bird's-foot trefoil, dog violet, cowslip, fairy flax, field scabious, common knapweed, wild liquorice and common and spiny restharrow.
The reserve is important for butterflies including marbled white, brown argus (rare and in low numbers), small skipper, common blue, meadow brown, small tortoiseshell and small heath. Visitors should also lookout for old anthills and the herbs such as wild thyme that grow on them.
Scrubby areas on Windmill Hill consist of flowering hawthorn and blackthorn that provide early nectar for hoverflies and other insects. The mix of grassland, shrubs and trees also help provide cover for willow warbler and chiffchaff. Kestrels are often seen hunting the open hillside for small mammals.
Steep slopes and stiles. No wheelchair access.
Use stiles; shut gates, please keep to the waymarked paths.
Park on roadside opposite entrance; take care due to busy traffic and poor visibility.


The three new songs written by Glenn & Rob have been co-produced by Glenn & Mike Exeter.
Two of them are called "Never Forget" and "Metalizer".
It would be great to have one of them available for download through this website.
Can't wait for the tour in July.


About sixteen months ago, I opened this series of blogs with an uncomfortably-geeky look at my music collection and extraction of a whole bunch of statistics on a whole bunch of inconsequential data.
Unsurprisingly, standard long-play albums make up the vast majority of my collection (93.7%); not a shock. Of the remaining 6.3%, though, two-thirds are EPs or collections of B-sides and rarities, while the remaining third consists of 'Greatest Hits' collections or live-recorded albums. In many ways, and in this age of digital interfaces and the ability to release small collections of new material online or through mechanisms like Bandcamp, it's arguable that the humble EP is going extinct; though the meteoric rise of vinyl in the last few years might be its saving grace.
In general, the proportions remain fairly the same: my most favourite genres grow whilst the lesser ones continue to trickle on. There's been a slow expansion in both my flavour for "Steampunk" (mainly due to finally acquiring the entire Steam Powered Giraffe back-catalogue as well as the smashing new record by The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing last year) and, more recently, black metal coming with growing respect for the genre. Equally, I've seen my interests decline in the likes of thrash metal, power metal and metalcore but become no less intense; it seems that my taste continue to evolve rather than undergo full-scale revolution.
Plotting these growths on a logarithmic scale (comparing the new additions to my collection with the genre counts as of 19/03/2015), one can see the fourfold increase in "Steampunk" records on my shelf but also observe the fairly consistent growth in genres across the board. I've always been aware that my musical taste is eccentrically-broad (who else can boast a music collection that features both Cradle of Filth and Ke$ha; Fleetwood Mac and Mr. Bungle?), but it's reassuring that the trend continues.
The notable gains on the swing-o-meter come under the category labelled "Indie", and there's a fine reason why: "Indie", at least in this little project, has come to classify anything that can't – for particular reasons – be described as full-on "Rock", but is something lighter; more atmospheric; or 'different'. In the last couple of years, I've absorbed more and more interest in the genre of post-rock (c.f. Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Sigur Ros, 65daysofstatic, God is an Astronaut et al.) and fuelled by a rampant voyage of discovery at festivals like ArcTanGent.
Unsurprisingly, my ever-expanding collection of post-rock makes up most of the category; particularly emphasised with a raft of spectacular albums released in 2015 and 2016 by the likes of Explosions in the Sky (The Wilderness), Three Trapped Tigers (Silent Earthling), God is an Astronaut (Helios/Erebus) and Godspeed You! Black Emperor (Asunder, Sweet and Other Distress).
Of the remains, post-punk (in this study, meaning the likes of Killing Joke, Hüsker Dü and The Cure) hoovers up what isn't what I'd call the more 'traditional' indie fayre (Death Cab for Cutie, Chairlift, KT Tunstall, Snow Patrol), whilst the couple of entries tentatively labelled "swing" are delivered by the mighty Dresden Dolls.
So, there you go. Naturally, I'll retroactively modify the genre split for the next Datastacks, so I can properly track how my tastes are evolving. I'd apologise for being such a massive maths/music nerd, but we both know that I'm by no means ashamed at all. So, nyer.
That being said, it's minorly interesting that the advances of homegrown artists in my collection almost matches the progress of US bands; again, through no particular alignment but reflecting, perhaps, efforts to fill back-catalogue gaps in my collection for the likes of Bowie, Muse, [spunge], Cradle of Filth and Funeral For A Friend. Not surprisingly, the NATO countries still dominate my collection, as evidenced by PIE CHARTS: clearly, were NATO to deploy heavy metal-based warfighters towards invasion of the rest of the world, then it's likely that they would annihilate the opposition.
Upon moving flat, I recently took the opportunity to bolster my music shelving with a few more bookcases and fully alphabeticised my collection by artist name; something I'd been meaning to do for a long time but had never gotten around to. Anyway, beyond the satisfaction of filing everything neatly onto the shelves, the exercise also highlighted some interesting facts about the alphabet.
Clearly, I own a buttload of 'A' artists, which owes a lot to AFI but also to the likes of Alkaline Trio, Alice in Chains, Amen, American Hi-Fi, Akercocke, Avenged Sevenfold, Audioslave, Alestorm, yada yada yada. I do wonder whether bands are inherently more likely to choose monickers which are closer to the head of the alphabet for the sakes of prominence in record stores; something that's far more a study in sociology than I'll attempt to address here.
Curiously, I haven't bought a single record by any artist beginning with 'J' in the last sixteen months; and only a single album each to the 'E' and 'Q' categories. In the positive side, though, there's finally a tally in the 'Z' column thanks to the wonderful new self-titled album by Zoax, so let's continue to watch the progress with interest.
And on that bombshell, I'll leave things until the next time. Boo-yah.


text:
2021-02-05 Falco Xplorer team firmly focused on military certification
Despite some disruption from the covid-19 pandemic, Leonardo's Falco Xplorer surveillance drone is moving towards military certification, with a schedule of flight activities planned for the second half of 2021.
"While travel limitations imposed for health reasons naturally slowed down activities last year, the Falco Xplorer team has maintained a great spirit and our people, our suppliers and our partners working together have continued to make progress towards certification" said to Arab Defence Journal Fabrizio Boggiani, SVP Airborne Systems - Electronics Italy at Leonardo. "We look forward to making more progress later this year with a series of flight activities as soon as the situation allows."
According to Mr Boggiani, the Falco Xplorer occupies a unique niche in the market, combining a payload capacity of 350kg, more than 24 hours flight time and a satellite communications capability for beyond-radio-line-of-sight operations, all within a relatively light 1.3 ton maximum take-off weight (MTOW).
Of special importance to the Middle Eastern market, the Falco Xplorer has been designed for a global customer base, being both free of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and compliant with existing Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) regulations, putting it in the readily exportable class II category.
"We have continued discussions with potential customers, mostly in a virtual setting, and the enthusiasm for the platform throughout the region remains high. There is a clear requirement in the Middle East region and beyond for persistent, multi-sensor strategic surveillance and our unique combination of high-capacity with relatively low size and weight makes Falco Xplorer a very attractive proposition. I'm looking forward to meeting some of our potential international customers face-to-face again soon, in the meantime we are keeping in close contact remotely" said Boggiani.
The Falco Xplorer successfully completed its maiden flight in January 2020 and embarked on further flights that year. During periods when employees were unable to move freely between sites and flight activities could not take place, teams of engineers spent the time analysing data collected during flights and working to refine and add additional functionality to the Falco Xplorer's mission system and human-machine interface. Other lab-based activities have also been brought forward, taking place earlier than originally planned in order to recover some of the time lost due to pandemic-related issues.
Fabrizio Boggiani concluded with a note of thanks for Leonardo's domestic partners, the Italian Air Force, who have assisted the certification process so far: "Our colleagues in the ITAF have been extremely supportive, especially considering the difficult global circumstances. I would like to thank them for their essential support in keeping the Falco Xplorer certification process moving forward."
Boeing to showcase its defense and security capabilities to the Middle East at IDEX 2021
"أبوظبي التنموية القابضة" تسعى للتميز في الإنتاجية والجودة فندق ماريوت الفرسان، أبوظبي يحتفي بيوم المرأة الإماراتية مع باقة مميزة من العروض Rafael at AERO INDIA 2021 محمد بن زايد يخصص 50 مليون جنيه لترميم "معهد الأورام" في القاهرة اتحاد المقاولين العالمية CCC تنقل للعالم "فلسفتها" للاستدامة طويلة الأمد U.S. Army Conducts Operational Assessment of Fire Weaver Sensor-to-Shooter System Rafael extends SPICE 250 range with new turbojet engine لتطوير استراتيجيات أمنية ودفاعية لإرساء السلام العالمي معرض ومؤتمر "آيدكس" و"نافدكس" أحد أهم منصات اتخاذ القرار في العالم U.S. Army Conducts Operational Assessment of Fire Weaver Sensor-to-Shooter System قبرص تدين "الاعتداء التركي" على سواحلها المطلوبُ محوِ كلّ الخطوطِ الحمر التي توضَعُ حولَ مؤسساتٍ وأفراد وهذا هو الخطُ الأحمرُ المنطقيّ الوحيد NAZAR, One of the Most Curious Projects of Turkish Defence Industry, Will Be Displayed for the First Time at IDEF 2021

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Coffee Lover? It Could Be in Your Genes
By Tanya Lewis
(Image credit: Mila Supinskaya/Shutterstock.com)
For some, coffee is the true nectar of the gods, while others won't touch a drop of the stuff. Now, a new study reveals how genes influence people's preferences for a cup o' Joe.
Researchers analyzed genetic data from studies of more than 120,000 coffee drinkers of European and African-American ancestry. They found eight locations of the human genome linked with coffee drinking, six of which had never been linked to consumption of the beverage before, according to the study, published today (Oct. 7) in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.
The findings further boost the idea that a hit of caffeine is what motivates regular coffee consumption, and could explain why the same amount of coffee or caffeine can have enormously different effects on different people. [10 Surprising Facts About Coffee]
"Coffee, a major dietary source of caffeine, is among the most widely consumed beverages in the world and has received considerable attention regarding health risks and benefits," the researchers wrote in the study.
Research consistently suggests that drinking coffee is linked to a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, liver disease and Parkinson's disease, the researchers said. However, the effects of coffee on cancer risk, cardiovascular health, pregnancy and other conditions remain unclear.
In the study, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston looked at the entire genomes of 90,000 coffee drinkers of European ancestry who had participated in 28 previous studies of regular coffee consumption.
They identified individual genetic differences, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which were associated with coffee consumption, and then conducted follow-up studies of about 30,000 and 8,000 coffee drinkers of European and African-American ancestry, respectively.
The researchers identified two new genes involved in how the body processes caffeine, POR and ABCG2. The found that those who drank more coffee were more likely to have certain variants of both of these genes, which encode proteins involved in caffeine metabolism.
They also found two regions of DNA near genes called BDNF and SLC6A4 that might play a role in how caffeine affects the brain by positive reinforcement. The study participants with a certain variant, who secrete less BDNF, may feel less of the rewarding effects of drinking coffee, according to the study. But the bigger coffee drinkers were more likely to have a certain variant of the SLC6A4 gene, which encodes a protein that transports the brain chemical serotonin.
They also identified regions near genes called GCKR and MLXIPL that are involved in sugar and fat processing, but had not been linked to the breakdown or neurological effects of coffee before. They found that people who drank more coffee were more likely to have a variant of the GCKR gene involved in glucose sensing in the brain, and that may affect how the brain responds to caffeine. The link between MLXIPL and coffee drinking remains unclear, the researchers said.
"Our results support the hypothesis that metabolic and neurological mechanisms of caffeine contribute to coffee consumption habits," the researchers wrote.
In addition, the findings help explain the difference in coffee consumption among people.
So, next time you reach for that sixth cup of coffee, just blame it on your genes.
Follow Tanya Lewis on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.
Tanya Lewis
Tanya was a staff writer for Live Science from 2013 to 2015, covering a wide array of topics, ranging from neuroscience to robotics to strange/cute animals. She received a graduate certificate in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a bachelor of science in biomedical engineering from Brown University. She has previously written for Science News, Wired, The Santa Cruz Sentinel, the radio show Big Picture Science and other places. Tanya has lived on a tropical island, witnessed volcanic eruptions and flown in zero gravity (without losing her lunch!). To find out what her latest project is, you can visit her website.


1. Place silicone dishware in boiling water to sterilize and remove strong odours.
2. Submerge the dish in a mixture of hot water and white vinegar using the ratio of one cup of vinegar for every two cups of hot water. Soak for 30 minutes, then scrub with a gentle cleaning sponge. Rinse and dry thoroughly.
3. Coat the dish with a mixture of white vinegar and baking soda using the ratio of one tablespoon of white vinegar to two tablespoon of baking soda. Allow the coated dish to sit overnight. Rinse with water to completely remove the mixture and dry thoroughly.


Today we're sharing Happiness Maker, an Ameiro NanoFate doujin from 2015 that just got released yesterday by Vivid Translations.
This is a 18 pages long doujin about the Takamachi family talking about the things that entail having a family with two mothers when their daughter brings the subject up. This is a sweet story with cute art as it's distinctive from Ameiro.
Original post on Vivid Translations.
A really sweet story. I like it.
I just think that, considering the male to female ratio we see in ViVid, two mothers might be bad because the human species is actually going extinct and not because people are assholes about it.
They have the technology for lesbian couples to have children, so the species shouldn't go extinct even with no male population.
Anyways, the doujin is cute but makes more sense in the context of Earth's society, where (I think) we have less than 10% homosexuality ratio in our population, instead of like 80% from what we see on Mid.
Of course, I forgot about magic. Makes sense I guess.


text:
Talk:4.19 Jump the Shark
"In the episode Sam initially says Adam was born in 1992."
No he doesn't. What Sam says is:
Adam was born in 1990 TO Kate Milligan. It's just that Sam ran the words all together so that it only sounds like he was saying 1992. Is there someway to correct this or take it out of the wikipage because Sam did not make a mistake.
Retrieved from "http://supernaturalwiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:4.19_Jump_the_Shark&oldid=84279"


text:
CRM requires change
Customer relationship management (CRM) components are some of the most important investments to be made in 2001, according to a recent Gartner Consulting survey of 600 large enterprises.
Ray McKenzie, director of management consulting at DMR Consulting in Seattle, believes that many organizations are buying pieces of a CRM solution but few have all of the components necessary to create a company-wide strategy.
"I would say that companies are not able to maximize benefits from the initiatives they have taken," McKenzie said. "This is not exclusive to CRM either, there are reports about success rates of ERP initiatives – they have taken longer to complete, they've cost more and so on."
He added that most people continue to see the value of improving customer relationships. "I don't think there's any doubt about that."
In his recent book The Relationship-based Enterprise, which has contributions from other CRM experts and business owners, McKenzie discusses why these investments are often not translated into business value.
McKenzie stresses the importance of defining relationships. He focuses on the "three Ds" – Discovery, Dialogue and Discipline.
Discovery concentrates on the customer, the customer knowledge, the context of that knowledge and how it adds to exchanges between the customer and the company, and how that leads to the value proposition.
Discipline refers to management, the business outcome, business design and what that brings to dialogue exchange, and how it all leads to the infrastructure.
The Dialogue starts with exchanges – impacted by discipline and discovery – and takes that through to conversations and the relationship. This all leads to the offer made by the company and the content that they show the customer.
McKenzie noted that relationship is the most important word in CRM.
"If you think about CRM, the customers are no problem to define, the management is no problem, but figuring out what a relationship is and how to improve it is the hard part," he said.
A company must first become a "learning organization," he stressed.
"They have to share things with their customers. They have to engage the customer through sharing resources. They have to be open, they have to ensure the enterprise is visible and they have to start dealing in real time. They have to respond and dialogue with customers in or near real time."
McKenzie also noted that no CRM solution can be enterprise-wide or complete without changing the mindset of the entire organization.
"That is an issue as well. It's about change management. How do we increase our capacity to change? Organizations need to deal with that as it is associated to CRM," he said.
"They need to have some sort of change management approach to make sure the CRM strategy is acceptable. They may need to change the culture or mindset in order to leverage this strategy."
He warned that CRM is not a true solution to all problems dealing with customers, because the customer, the organization and society will continually change.
"I think most companies understand that this is a process, but enterprises are under pressure from competition and from analysts to show their quarterly results."
He suggested that CRM may need a champion within the organization. "Most change programs do. Some organizations are looking to a new kind of role. They're looking to a chief customer officer to be the champion for this kind of program."
The Relationship-based Enterprise points out that enterprise integration will not be enough to keep customers. Connecting or relating to customers will always be the bigger challenge.
McKenzie said a true solution will master the process of conversation with the customer and use that dialogue to define the CRM needs of the company.
Wireless briefs
Wireless vendors back XHTML
Microsoft to cease sales of Windows 10 licenses
Cyber Security Today, Jan. 20, 2023 – Ransomware payments plunged in 2022, malware hidden in blank images and more
Sidebar: A primer on Canada's data privacy laws


When will be James May: The Reassembler next episode air date? Is James May: The Reassembler renewed or cancelled? Where to countdown James May: The Reassembler air dates? Is James May: The Reassembler worth watching?
Series in which James May explores the intricacies and engineering marvels of various objects by putting them back together again from a pile of hundreds of their component parts.
faces the nervous climax where he discovers if it actually works.
In this episode James reassembles the 135 parts that make up a 1960s Kenwood Chef a701a Food Mixer. This literal food revolution is responsible for mixing more cake batter than Mary Berry has mixed in her entire lifetime.
On James' journey to reassembling the food mixer he comes face to face with some mind-boggling components that will all come together to work in unison in the hope of making a chocolate cake mix. From reassembling the planetary gear system and the AC electric motor James muses on the imperial measurement system and shows of his trendy new magnification head gear as he attempts some dreaded soldering.
Series in which James May explores the intricacies and engineering marvels of various objects by putting them back together again from a pile of hundreds of their component parts. James is faced with reassembling a 1970s Honda Z50A Mini Trail Motorcycle from all its 303 parts. This exciting and portable mini motorcycle was fun for all the family and got a whole generation of kids hooked on motorcycles for the rest of their lives. This is an object James can't wait to reassemble, but along the way he faces a very real and very hostile battle with some springs, ponders over correct workshop etiquette and contemplates the lifelong debate - what's the difference between a bolt and a screw?
Back in the 1950s listening to music meant sitting around with your Mum and Dad and having to listen to whatever drivel they wanted. Thankfully, along came the portable record player - which helped gave birth to the teenager and a magical music revolution.
James reminisces about his teenage years and what it was like growing up in the 1970s as he takes us on a journey through sound and mechanical wonderment. James falls in love with the beautiful mechanisms that lie in the belly of the beast, finds the perfect solution to his soldering dilemma and has a rather exciting new screwdriver to show us.
James May: The Reassembler next episode air date provides TVMaze for you.
EpisoDate.com is your TV show guide to Countdown James May: The Reassembler Episode Air Dates and to stay in touch with James May: The Reassembler next episode Air Date and your others favorite TV Shows. Add the shows you like to a "Watchlist" and let the site take it from there.


text:
Jimmie Allen Reacts to joining Dancing with the Stars cast
Jason Kempin/Getty Images
Jimmie Allen is joining the 30th season of ABC's Dancing with the Stars! The news was announced on Good Morning America from one of Jimmie's favorite places: Disneyland.
"It feels great," Jimmie gushed. "I proposed to my wife at Disney. We had our baby reveal at Disney. I've gone like 70 times since 2012. It's pretty bad. But there's worst things to be addicted to. So why not give all my money to the Mouse?"
Jimmie has spoken to several former DWTS competitors, including some of his friends in the country music community.
"I talked to Chuck Wicks, he did it," Jimmie says. "Lauren Alaina. I actually talked to AJ [McLean]. Rashad Jennings, Bobby Bones. I know Nelly did it last season. They said it's gonna be difficult, but it's fun, and they're not lying. These rehearsals … I never ballroom danced a day in my life. It's rough."
Other cast members include JoJo Siwa, Sunisa Lee, Brian Austin Green, Amanda Kloots, Olivia Jade and more.
Season 30 of Dancing with the Stars will premiere on Monday, September 20, at 8:00 p.m. ET on ABC.


text:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 41 › City of Mobile v. Eslava
City of Mobile v. Eslava, 41 U.S. 234 (1842)
City of Mobile v. Eslava, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 234 234 (1842)
City of Mobile v. Eslava
41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 234
A lot of ground, part of the ground on which Fort Charlotte had been erected, in the City of Mobile, before the territory was acquired from Spain by the United States, had been sold under an act of Congress of 1818. The lot had been laid out according to a plan by which a street called Water Street was run along the margin of Mobile River, and the street was extended over part of the site of Fort Charlotte. The lot was situated west of Water Street, but when sold by the United States, its eastern line was below high water mark of the river. The purchaser of this lot improved the lot lying in front of it, east of Water Street, having filled it up at a heavy expense, thus reclaiming it from the river, which at high water had covered it. When the lot east of Water Street was purchased, the purchaser could not pass along the street except with the aid of logs and other timber. Water Street was, in 1823, filled up at the cost of the City of Mobile. Taxes and assessments for making sidewalks along Water Street were paid to the City of Mobile by the owner of the lot. The City of Mobile had brought suit for taxes, and had advertised the lot for sale as the property of a tenant under the purchaser of the lot. On 26 May, 1824, Congress passed an act which declared in the first section that all the right and claim of the United States to the lots known as the Hospital and Bakehouse lots, containing about three-fourths of an acre of land in the State of Alabama, and all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals either by this or any former act, and to which no equitable title exists in favor of any individual under this or any other act, between high water mark and the channel of the river and between Church Street and North Boundary Street in front of the City of Mobile should be vested in the corporation of the City of Mobile for the use of the city forever. The second section provides
"That all the right and claim of the United States to so many of the lots east of Water Street and between Church Street and North Boundary Street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots, known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said City of Mobile, whereon improvements have been made be and the same are hereby vested in the several proprietors and occupants of each of the lots heretofore fronting on the River Mobile,"
&c. The City of Mobile claimed from the defendant in error the lot held by him, under the purchase from the United States, and the improvements before described, asserting that the same was vested in the city by the first section of the act of 1824. Held that under the provisions of the second section of the act, the defendant in error claiming under the purchase made under the act of 1818 and under the act of 1824 was entitled to the lot.
The right relinquished by the United States was to the water lots,
"lying east of Water Street and between Church Street and North Boundary Street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots, known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said City of Mobile, whereon improvements have been made."
The improvements refer to the water, and
not to the front, lots. A reasonable construction of the act requires the improvements to have been made or owned by the proprietor of the front lot at the time of the passage of the act. Being proprietor of the front lot, and having improved the water lot opposite and east of Water Street, constitute the conditions on which the right under the statute vests.
The plaintiffs in error instituted an action called, in the language of the laws of Alabama, "a plea of trespass to try titles," against Miguel D. Eslava, the purpose of which was the recovery of possession and damages for the detention of a certain lot of ground, in the City of Mobile bounded north by ground in the possession of Thomas Terry, east by Commerce Street, south by Church Street, west by Water Street, and extending from the east side of Commerce Street to the channel of the river.
The cause was tried in the circuit court in November 1837, and a judgment on the verdict of a jury was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiffs took a bill of exceptions to the charge of the court, and afterwards prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Alabama, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The plaintiffs took out this writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The bill of exceptions stated that the lot in controversy was held by the defendant under the following circumstances:
By an act of Congress passed in 1818, the lot of ground whereon Fort Charlotte, in the Town of Mobile, had been situated was directed to be surveyed and laid off into lots, with suitable streets and avenues conforming as near as may be to the original plan of the town, and the lots thus laid off were directed to be sold under the authority of the president of the United States. The lots were surveyed and laid off and were afterwards sold. By an original plan of the town, a street known as Water Street was run on the margin of Mobile River, continuous with and fronting the same. This street was run on part of the site of Fort Charlotte, where the lots are laid out; another street, known as Church Street, was laid off on the site of the fort. The lots were sold by the United States agreeable to the plan; no lots were laid off, and none was sold by the United States east of Water Street. Under the Spanish government, and while the United States held possession of Fort Charlotte, there was an open unobstructed
space from high water mark on the river to the channel, except a wharf used for the commerce of the fort.
The lot in dispute was situated on the east side of Water Street, directly opposite to the lot sold by the United States, part of the site of the fort, within the open space between high and low water mark, and part of it within the boundary of the picket fence that formerly surrounded the fort. After the purchase of the lots laid out on the site of Fort Charlotte by "the lot company," a survey was made by the company, and a larger quantity of ground was included in the survey. The defendant held under a purchase from the lot company. There is a regular oceanic tide in the River Mobile, the ebb and flow of which is about eighteen inches. In 1822, Water Street and the lot in dispute were between high and low water mark. The City of Mobile, at the cost of the city, filled up Water Street to some extent, and confined the water at high tide to the eastern edge of Water Street. No evidence was offered to prove the lots in front of Fort Charlotte were known under the Spanish government as water lots, on which improvements had been made.
The plaintiffs, in the circuit court, claimed title under the Act of Congress of 20 May 1824, entitled "an act granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the City of Mobile, and to certain individuals in the said city." Considerable sums of money were expended by the purchasers of the lots on the site of Fort Charlotte, to fill up the lots between Water Street and low water mark, and the passage along Water Street could only be made, until it was filled up by the corporation of Mobile, by logs laid along the street. The lot in dispute had been filled up at a heavy expense, and the tenant of the defendant in error had, according to an entry on the books of the corporation, in 1823, filled up a stagnant pond at the end of Church Street, which had been occasioned by the improvement on the lot. One witness testified that the stakes in front of the lot, when sold by the United States, ran to the east of Water Street, so that a portion of the property, when purchased from the United States, would have been within the staked lines of the lot. Evidence was offered by the defendant to prove that in 1828 and for every year until 1836, taxes on the lot had been paid to the corporation of Mobile; that in 1833, the person in possession of the lot had been required
by the Mayor of Mobile to fill up two places upon it with earth or shells, and about the same time the corporation had advertised the lot for sale for unpaid taxes, which were afterwards paid.
The Act of 20 May 1824, by its first section, declared,
"That the right and claim of the United States to the lots known as the Hospital and Bakehouse lots, containing about three-fourths of an acre of land, in the State of Alabama, and also all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals either by this or any former act, and to which no equitable title exists in favor of any individual, either by this or any former act, between high water mark and the channel of the river and between Church Street, and North Boundary Street, in front of the said city, be and the same are hereby vested in the mayor and aldermen of the said city,"
&c. The second section of the act declared
"That all the right and claim of the United States to so many of the lots east of Water Street, and between Church Street and North Boundary Street, and now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said City of Mobile, whereon improvements had been made, be and the same are hereby vested in the several proprietors or occupants of each of the lots heretofore fronting on the River Mobile, except in cases where such proprietor or occupant has alienated his right to any such lot now designated as a water lot,"
Upon which the judge charged the jury that if the lots specified in the patents 10, 11, 12 &c., were proved to have been bounded by high water mark at the time purchased, then they came within the terms of "lots known under the Spanish government as water lots, as used in the act of Congress," and if proved that the lot claimed was east of Water Street and in front of the lots covered by the patents, and that it had been improved before the passage of the act, it was vested in the proprietors and occupants of the lots held under the patents, and this although Water Street did intervene between the lots claimed and those held under the patents.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF ALABAMA
McLEAN, JUSTICE, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiffs brought an action to recover certain lots in the City of Mobile, bounded east by Commerce Street, south by Church Street, on the west by Water Street, and extending on the east side of Commerce Street to the channel of the river. They claim title under the Act of Congress of 26 May 1824, and the circuit court of the state, in which the action was first brought, decided against their title. That decision was removed to the supreme court of the state by writ of error, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. Under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the case is brought before this Court.
The first section of the above act declares
"That all the right and claim of the United States to the lots known as the Hospital and Bakehouse lots, containing about three-fourths of an acre of
land, in the State of Alabama, and also all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals, either by this or any former act, and to which no equitable title exists in favor of any individual under this or any other act, between high water mark and the channel of the river, and between Church Street and North Boundary Street, in front of the said city, be and the same are hereby vested in the Mayor and Aldermen of the said City of Mobile for the time being, and their successors in office, for the sole use and benefit of the said city forever."
The defendant's title was acquired by purchase from the United States at a public sale in 1820. This sale was made under the Act of Congress of 20 April, 1818, which gave power to the President to sell the ground on which Fort Charlotte, at Mobile, stood. The ground was required to be laid off into lots, with suitable streets and avenues, conforming, as near as practicable, to the plan of the city. Ten squares and parts of squares were surveyed and divided into lots, streets &c. By the original plan of the city, a street known as Water Street was run on the margin of the Mobile River, and this street, by the said survey, was extended over a part of the site of Fort Charlotte, along the margin of the river. No lots were sold east of this street. Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, in square 1, lie immediately west of Water Street and are bounded by it. The lots in dispute lie east of Water Street and directly opposite the lots above numbered.
In 1822, Water Street and the property now in dispute were between high and low water mark. The corporation of the city, in 1823, expended $400 in filling up Water Street, and by the improvement confined the water, at high tide, to the eastern side of Water Street. It was proved on the trial that in order to reclaim one of the lots in square 2, east of Water Street, the owner had to fill up seven feet, and that he could not pass along Water Street at that time except with the aid of logs and other timbers. Another witness stated that he purchased the lot west of the lots in dispute, and that he had to fill up his lot before it could be occupied. And other evidence was given by defendant conducing to prove that the eastern line of the lots, at the date of the sale, was
below high water mark, and that the company which purchased the lots at the sale of the government expended about $3,000 for the common benefit of their property and to keep the water from it. It was also proved that after the purchase of one of the lots in controversy by Addin Lewis, under whom the defendant claims, he caused dirt to be hauled upon it, and timbers were laid to fence out the water and fit the lot for a timber yard. Charles Matthews, who owned one of the lots bounded by the water, expended $1,000 in filling up his lot. And to show improvements on the lots in dispute before 1824, the defendant read from the book of the corporation the following entry, dated in 1823: "Charles S. Matthews having improved his lot by filling it up, and a stagnant pond being occasioned thereby at the end of Church Street, &c." In 1824, about one-half of the space between Water Street and Commerce Street was subject to be covered by water at the ordinary tides. Water Street was not opened as low as Church Street until 1824. It appeared that the defendant and those under whom he claims had paid taxes on the property to the corporation. That in 1824 or 1825, the defendant was required to pay for sidewalks around his lots upon the assessment of the corporation, and in 1833 he was required by the mayor of the city to fill up two places upon one of the lots with earth or shells. About this time the lot was advertised for sale as the property of Matthews, the defendant's tenant, for taxes due the corporation, which were afterwards paid, with the costs of advertising, &c.
Upon these facts, the circuit judge charged the jury
"That if the lots specified in the patents 10, 11, 12 &c. were proved to have been bounded by high water mark at the time purchased, then they came within the terms of 'lots known under the Spanish government as water lots' as used in the act of Congress, and if proved that the lots claimed were east of Water Street and in front of the lots covered by the patents, and that they had been improved before the passage of the act of 1824, they were vested in the proprietors and occupants of the lots held under the patents, and this although Water Street did intervene between the lots claimed and those held under the patents."
And the court further charged the jury that
"If the proof showed the property
to have been assessed in 1823 by the city authorities at $4,000, and recently at $88,000, and that the improved value resulted from the labor of Charles Matthews; that if, in August 1823, the mayor and aldermen, in reference to one of the lots in dispute, had on their minutes used this language, viz., whereas Charles Matthews has commenced to improve his lot by filling up, &c., and that a committee was organized to inquire into a nuisance connected with the lot, that in 1824 and 1825 of the years between that and the commencement of the suit, the city taxes had been assessed on the property and collected from Matthews, and that he had been required by an ordinance of the mayor and aldermen to make sidewalks along this lot, and had so done, that Matthews had, by a written notice issued by the mayor, been required to fill up some low places on said lot to abate a nuisance thereon, and that this property was advertised for sale as the property of Matthews in one of the city papers for the nonpayment of city taxes assessed thereon, and that subsequently Matthews had paid such taxes into the city treasury, that the facts estopped the plaintiff from asserting any preexisting title under the act of Congress."
The plaintiffs' counsel requested the judge to charge the jury
"That if they believed the facts were proved, as contended for by them, the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict in their favor, which the judge refused to do."
In their opinion, the Supreme Court of Alabama did not give a construction of the act of 1824, under which the plaintiffs' right is asserted, but consider the respective rights and powers of the federal and state governments arising under the federal Constitution and the compact entered into on the admission of the State of Alabama into the Union. The power of the Spanish monarch over the soil and navigable waters when the territory was under his dominion is also considered and illustrated, and the doctrines of the common law as applicable to the subject are examined, and by this course of reasoning, the court, among other conclusions, decided that the act of 1824 is void, as Congress had no power to grant the property in dispute. The result of this investigation was the affirmance of the judgment of the circuit court. And so far as regards the question before us, it is immaterial by what process of reasoning the
Supreme Court of Alabama came to this conclusion; its opinion constitutes no part of the record, and is not properly a part of the case; we must look to the points raised by the exceptions in the circuit court, as the only questions for our consideration and decision.
Both parties set up a right under the act of 1824. It is the foundation of the plaintiff's title, and the defendant relies upon it as sanctioning his claim. Now no construction of this act can favor the hostile pretensions of both parties, and if the true construction of it shall give no title to the plaintiffs, this controversy is at an end. And in this view it is unnecessary to inquire into the constitutionality of the act.
The defendant insists that his right is sanctioned by the second section of the above act, which provides
"That all the right an claim of the United States to so many of the lots of ground east of Water Street and between Church Street and North Boundary Street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots known, under the Spanish government, as water lots, in the said City of Mobile, whereon improvements have been made, be and the same are hereby vested in the several proprietors and occupants of the lots heretofore fronting on the River Mobile, except in cases where such proprietor or occupant has alienated his right to any such lot now designated as a water lot,"
This Court gave some consideration to the construction of this section in the case of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe, 14 Pet. 353, and there was a diversity of opinion among the judges on the subject. It must be admitted that the section was loosely drawn and its meaning may be somewhat involved in doubt. Some doubt has been expressed whether the improvements required were to have been made on the front or water lot. But we think they must be made on the latter. The right relinquished by the United States was to the water lots lying
"east of Water Street . . . and between Church Street and North Boundary Street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said City of Mobile, whereon improvements have been made."
Now it will be observed that all the words between the words "water lots," first used in the
above sentence, and the words "whereon improvements have been made" are only descriptive of the locality of the water lots to which the right was relinquished. And if this be the case, it follows that the improvements refer to the water, and not the front, lots. And we think a reasonable construction of the act requires the improvements to have been made or owned by the proprietor of the front lot at the time of its passage. Being proprietor of the front lot and having improved the water lot opposite and east of Water Street constitute the conditions on which the right, if any, under the statute vests. In his charge to the jury, the judge laid down these conditions in clear terms and instructed the jury, if the facts brought the defendant within them, that they should find against the plaintiffs. The jury did so find, and this is conclusive as to the facts of the case, and the only inquiry remains whether by any possibly construction of the act in view of these facts, any right under it can be asserted by the plaintiffs.
A statute so badly drawn as to vest a right to the same property in hostile claimants would in itself be a nullity. Exceptionable and involved as the language of this statute may be, it is not obnoxious to this objection. The first section, under which alone can the plaintiffs pretend to have any color of right, excepts from its provision
"lots sold or confirmed to individuals, either by that or any former act, and to which an equitable title exists in favor of any individual, under that or any other act."
This exception embraces the right of the defendant as found by the jury, and shows that however obscure some points of the act may be, its provisions are consistent. As this is decisive of the case, it is unnecessary to notice the instruction prayed for by the plaintiffs in the circuit court, and which the court refused to give. It was asked in affirmance, generally, of the plaintiffs' right.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama, which affirms the judgment of the circuit Court of that state, is
CATRON, JUSTICE.
This is a writ of error prosecuted to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama in an action corresponding to an ejectment. The first question is has this Court jurisdiction
under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act? Both parties claim under a Private Act of Congress of 26 May, 1824. It granted to the corporation of Mobile the lands between high water mark and the channel of the river in front of the city; the premises sued for are included within the limits. The decision of the state court was against the right claimed on the part of the plaintiffs.
First. The defendant set up a claim under the second section of the same act because he had improved the premises before 1824, and when he was an alienee from the proprietors of the front lots west of Water Street.
Second. He insisted that the city was estopped to set up a claim under the act of Congress because the defendant had improved the lot and being recognized as owner by the corporation in various ways.
The plaintiffs, having read the act of Congress as a grant and proved the defendant in possession, asked the court to instruct the jury that if they believed the facts were proved, as contended for by them, they were entitled to a verdict, which instruction the court refused, and a verdict was rendered for the defendant and judgment given in the circuit court for him, to which a writ of error was prosecuted to the supreme court. One error assigned is "that the charge of the circuit judge denies that the United States had power to grant the premises in question." On this assignment there was a joinder -- that there was no error.
The plaintiff's title is set out in the record, and upon this title and upon the last assignment of error is the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama exclusively founded. The opinion is before us, and maintains that the act of 1824 is void, as did a most labored argument here on the part of the defendant in error. To meet the opinion this cause was avowedly brought into this Court, by the corporation of the City of Mobile; it is conclusive in the state courts against the title of the city and that of its alienees to a vast amount of property held under the act of 1824, and I think it is our duty to meet the question; if we do not, the decision will remain the law of Alabama. The whole title of both sides is forth in the record, and it was quite proper in the Supreme Court of Alabama to commence with the examination of the plaintiffs' first, and if found void, to declare
that the plaintiffs could only recover on the strength of their own title, and refuse to examine the adversary title of defendant. The charge of the circuit court on any other point was not noticed, nor do I see how, in another case, the corporation can more prominently present the question on the validity of the act of Congress so as to bring it before this Court for final decision. First or last, this is not to be avoided.
That the whole case is before this Court will be seen by reference to Ross v. Borland, 1 Pet. 664. There, both sides derived title under an act of Congress. The defendant's claim was rejected on a construction given to the plaintiff's patent and entry. It recognized the case of Matthews v. Zane, 4 Cranch 382, as having settled the doctrine that where both sides claim under acts of Congress and come to this Court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act for their construction, the Court proceeds on the whole case, and for either side. The Court said
"The Third Article of the Constitution, when considered in connection with the statute, will give it a more extensive construction than it might otherwise receive. It is supposed that the Act (1789, § 25) intends to give this Court power of rendering uniform the construction of the laws of the United States, and the decision of rights and titles claimed under those laws."
This decision was made in 1808.
The case of Ross v. Borland was this:
Borland claimed by a patent dated October 1820, founded on an entry of 1807. The defendant claimed under a patent dated in 1819. The state court adjudged the younger patent the better title; it was coupled with the entry, giving the title date from 1807. This Court said
"By the Constitution, the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States and treaties made or to be made under its authority, and where the construction of a statute of the United States is drawn in question and the decision is against the right or title set up under it, the decision may be reexamined and reversed or affirmed by this Court."
The Court held that, as both parties claimed under the act of Congress, the case of Matthews v. Zane governed.
The point was more prominently presented in Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 509. A preemption claimant took old Fort Dearborne, at Chicago. He got a certificate from the register of the land office; on this he sued in the state circuit court in Illinois. A special verdict set out all the facts. The defendant was a military officer in the fort. The United States resisted the claim, because it was insisted, the fort was appropriated land. On the special verdict and on the broad facts referred to the court by the jury, the circuit court gave judgment for the defendant. A writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Illinois. That court gave judgment for the plaintiff. Then the United States, in the name of Wilcox, prosecuted a writ of error to this Court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. We examined the cause precisely as the Supreme Court of Illinois had done -- that is, on the entire record presented by the special verdict. On what ground the court below had founded its judgment we only knew by its opinion produced to us. We reversed the judgment and rendered one for the defendant. We declared the entry on which the plaintiff founded his action void on a construction of the acts of Congress governing the case, following, to some extent, Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 305, 14 U. S. 355.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Alabama declared the grant of the plaintiff void because the land, as they supposed, had vested previously in the state. Had the bill of exceptions been turned into a special verdict, and there would not be a shade of difference in the cases. On this point there was no doubt entertained in Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe, 14 Pet. 53.
With this explanation, we will proceed to the merits, and first inquire whether the claim of the defendant can be sustained under his title from the purchasers of the Fort Charlotte property.
By the Act of April 1818, 3 Stat. 465, the president was authorized to cause Fort Charlotte to be abandoned, and the land on which it stood to be surveyed and laid off into lots, with suitable streets and avenues, conforming as near as might be to the original plan of the City of Mobile, and on the survey's being completed, a plot thereof was to be returned to the Secretary of the Treasury and another to be furnished
to the officer authorized to dispose of the lots by the president; the lots were to be advertised and sold as other public lands of the United States, and a patent was to be issued for each lot.
The lots were laid off, as also the streets. Water Street was located next the bay, and the lots nearest the water fronted that street on the west; the lots were neither surveyed nor sold east of Water Street. High tide flowed up to the street and in part covered it, but east of it, there was a wide flat, covered, from a foot to eighteen inches deep, when the tide was in, but when out, free from water to the channel of the Mobile River. This flat was easily reclaimed by embankments and filling up, and was obviously the ground on which a great part of the city would soon be located. Reclaiming lands from the water through that section of country is the common practice, and was deemed a matter of course in this instance. The purchasers of the Fort Charlotte lots west of Water Street, foreseeing the value of the property east of it, seized on the flooded lands on the assumption that they were entitled to go to the channel of the river as riparian owners of the front on the shore, and on this assumption sold to Matthews the property in dispute, lying east of Water Street. The flat has since been filled up, and there are several streets east of Water Street. It is manifest the United States only sold the lots laid off (for each of which a patent was issued), reserving the land next the channel of the river, in regard to which the Supreme Court of Alabama said
"The defendant does not rely upon his riparian proprietorship as entitling him to the land east of Water Street, nor indeed could he insist on it with success, as the Fort Charlotte lots were not bounded by the river, but had other fixed metes and bounds."
Nor was it possible that the lands seized upon and sold to Matthews could follow as an incident to the patent, for two additional reasons:
First. Had the purchase been to the River or Bay of Mobile in terms, the boundary would have been limited to high water mark; such is the rule (as I think), beyond controversy, in regard to all our territory acquired from Spain. So the Supreme Court of Alabama held in Hagan v. Campbell, 8 Porter 24; so it has held in other cases; it is the established law of property in that state.
Second. Water Street was reserved next the bay, and being public property, all the incidents
of accretion (had any accrued) would have belonged to the public, and not to the owners of lots west of the intervening street. On this point, the great Batture case, at New Orleans, turned. See Daubigny's Expose 22, 58-59. Gravier claimed to have purchased to the River Mississippi, and the claim was resisted on the ground that he had only purchased to the highway lying on the bank of the river. The question was who should have the acretions? The case was decided on the fact that Gravier's purchase of the Jesuits' property was bounded by the bank, and that the road ran over his property as an easement. 2 Hall's Law Journ. 295; 5 id. 1 and 113; Angel on Tidewaters, App'x 197, Mr. Livingston's argument. The fact that Water Street was reserved to the United States is undisputed in this case, and is conclusive of any claim, east of the intervening street, in the purchasers of the Fort Charlotte lots. The defendants' title can therefore derive no aid from this source.
2. Did he derive title by force of the act of 1824? The court below held that the law was inoperative for want of power in Congress to pass title to the lands between Water Street and the channel of the river, and the corporation of the City of Mobile, being the plaintiff, could not recover (as actor) for want of title. That the United States acquired the title to lands flowed by tides by the treaty with Spain is, of course, admitted. That they had power to grant, up to the adoption of the Constitution of Alabama in 1819, is also admitted in the opinion under review. That the Spanish King could grant lands under tidewater, is free from doubt, and the United States acquired by cession all his owners over the vacant soil. But the lands flowed by the tides are claimed for the State of Alabama as a part of her sovereign rights.
To comprehend the nature of the claim, some laws and facts must be stated. When the Alabama Territory, in 1819, proposed to form a state government, Congress passed an act (ch. 171) to authorize the formation of a state constitution, and proposed several conditions for the adoption of the convention which were adopted as part of the constitution, and amongst others it was agreed with the United States
"That the people of Alabama forever disclaim all right and title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within the state, and that the same shall remain at the sole disposition of the United States. "
"2. That all the navigable waters within the state shall forever remain public highways and free to the citizens of that state, and the United States, without any tax, duty or impost, or toll therefor, imposed by that state."
The Constitution of Alabama was presented to Congress for recognition, and on 14 December 1819, it was resolved
"That the State of Alabama shall be one and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever."
By the acceptance of the conditions on part of the United States, it is considered clear, says the Supreme Court of Alabama,
"That the navigable waters of this state have been dedicated to the common use of the people of the United States, but perhaps it may be considered as questionable what extent of soil is embraced by the dedication. We think it must be so much ground as is covered with water not only at low but at high tide."
The court then proceeds further to declare:
"That the act of 1824 vested no title in the corporation of Mobile, for the reason, that the State of Alabama was admitted into the Union on the footing of the original states. That the original states, by their colonial charters, had the right of property in bays and arms of the sea; this they retained, and it can only be interfered with by the federal government, under the right to regulate commerce, so far as to preserve a free navigation. The United States then may be said to claim for the public an easement for the transportation of merchandize &c. in the navigable waters of the original states, while the right of property remains in the states."
"The original states possessing this interest in the waters within their jurisdictional limits, the new states cannot stand upon an equal footing with them as members of the Union if the United States still retain over their navigable waters any other right than is necessary to the exercise of its constitutional powers."
"To recapitulate, we are of opinion:"
"First, that the navigable waters within this state have been dedicated to the use of the citizens of the United States, so that it is not competent for Congress to grant a right of property in the same."
"Second, the navigable waters extend not only to low water, but embrace all the soil that is within the limits of high water mark."
"Third, by the acts of Congress
regulating the survey and disposal of the public lands, the federal government has renounced the title to the navigable waters and the soil covered by them; consequently, the plaintiffs cannot recover, on the ground of a dedication to the uses of the city, under the act of 1824, which is an enactment of a later date."
"Fourth, the original states, in virtue of their royal charters, are entitled to the right of property in the navigable waters within their territory, while the public are only entitled to an easement, to be provided for under that provision of the federal Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce, &c. Alabama is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, and, of consequence, is entitled to the right of property in the tidewaters within its limits."
"Fifth, by the admission of Alabama into the Union, without a reservation of the right of property in the navigable waters, the state succeeded to all the right of the United States, except so far as it was reserved by the federal Constitution, in some of its grants, or its retention was necessary to enable the federal government to exercise its delegated powers. Having attained these conclusions, it will follow, that the act of 1824 is inoperative, and confers no title upon the plaintiffs."
That the original states acquired by the revolution the entire rights of soil, and of sovereignty, is most certain. And if it be true that Alabama was admitted on an equal footing in regard to the rights of soil with the original states, she can hold the high lands equally with the land covered by navigable waters, and so can nine other states equally hold, to the utter destruction of all claim to the lands heretofore indisputably recognized as belonging to the United States, as being a common fund of the Union.
The clause inserted into the Constitution of Alabama, reserving the rights of property to the United States as a compact with them, embraces lands under water as emphatically as those not covered with water; but if no stipulation saving the interest of the United States had been made, they would have had just as much right to their private property as an individual had to his. They hold, as a corporation, an individual title.
The Constitution of the United States provides
"That the Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging
to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular state."
This is the paramount law of the land, by force of which the public domain in Alabama was held and governed, and which needed no aid.
Neither did Congress cede it by stipulating that the navigable waters should be highways. That such rivers are common for the purposes of navigation and commerce, in the widest sense, is free from doubt; that Alabama has jurisdiction and power over them the same as the original states have over their navigable waters is equally clear. Yet it does not follow that the fee of the shores, banks, and soils under water is in the State of Alabama. The United States, as owner, can do no act to obstruct the free public use of the waters, more than a private owner of the soil under water could obstruct the navigation. The individual owner in fee of the bottom of a navigable river can cultivate and take out the shell fish or the minerals from the bed; nor can it be doubted that the United States may pursue veins of silver, tin, lead or copper under the bottom of a bay, the River Mississippi, or a great lake, although they could not impede in any degree their navigation. So may the assignees or lessees of the United States do the same.
Nor can it be otherwise in regard to the occupation of the lands between high and low water mark. The delta of the Mississippi, the greater part of East Florida, much of Alabama, and also of the State of Mississippi, have lands covered slightly with the flow of high water; these lands are subject to be redeemed by embankments; they amount to some millions of acres; many of them are of the best rice, indigo, and even sugar and cotton lands on this continent. Immense bodies of lands are flowed by the Great Lakes and subject to be redeemed, and yet more, many parts of the shores of the great River Mississippi, from the mouth of the Missouri to the ocean, are annually flowed by a tide of its own, and the lands are redeemed by levees from the water, until the vessels on its surface float above redeemed plantations that have been submerged for months every year, and that were submerged in 1819, when it is supposed the United States, by implication, ceded all the flowed lands within her limits to Alabama. Embankments to exclude the water are almost as common on the banks
of the Mississippi River, and in the delta of country embraced by its mouths, as are fences, in other parts of the country, to protect the crops from animals, and it is not in the reach of probability, or of belief, that Congress, by an oversight, surrendered all flowed lands to the states in which they lie, or that it was intended to cede to the new states the right to prohibit the construction of forts and defenses by the United States, on the public lands below the high water mark. I imagine it has never occurred to anyone that a purchase of the soil from the State of Louisiana was necessary, before works within the flow of tidewater could be constructed for the defense of the mouths of the Mississippi River. The idea is new, and the assumption leading to such a consequence, startling. It is certainly not so in Alabama. To cut off every pretense of the kind, Congress asked Alabama when she entered the Union to disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated and waste lands lying within the state, and that the same should remain at the sole disposition of the United States, and to this Alabama bound herself in the most solemn manner by her constitution. The claim set up for her on this ground, has, therefore, no just foundation.
The Supreme Court of Alabama also holds, that by the several acts of Congress, regulating the survey of the public lands, it is provided, those which border on navigable waters shall not include within their lines any part of the shore, and therefore the federal government has renounced the title to the navigable waters and the soil covered by them.
The United States has surveyed the shore of the tidewaters, Great Lakes, and certainly the banks of the great rivers, to a wide extent. From the first, shores and banks of rivers have been the boundaries of fractional sections; large quantities of land have been sold, and are now in the market, within the high water mark; many even on the Alabama River. On the Mississippi, most of the fractions are partially overflowed. Towns and villages on the banks of the rivers are partly within the high water mark, resting on patents from the United States, or on confirmed French and Spanish claims. Scarcely any are exempt from this supposed infirmity of title, when situated on tidewater, or on the larger rivers, and this is especially so, in regard to the towns on the Mississippi, within the range of country sold out by the
United States. Indeed, one town, at the mouth of the Ohio, is entirely below high water mark, and secured by embankment, so that it is idle to adduce the practice of the government as proof of abandonment. The United States reserved the lands under water and between high and low water mark in many instances for public use, and subject to grant by special acts of Congress.
That this is so, we need go no further than the City of Mobile for evidence. The British government made a grant to William Richardson in 1767, fronting on Mobile River, one hundred and forty poles, but bounded by the river. In 1807, the Spanish governor at Pensacola confirmed the same to John Forbes & Co., extending to the channel of the river. This grant was void, for want of authority in the governor to make it; the country having been ceded to the United States. Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511. The act of 1819 (Land Laws 748) granted it by confirmation to John Forbes & Co. It lies at the city, is two hundred and sixty-three acres on the high land, and was adjudged a good title in Hagan v. Campbell by the Supreme Court of Alabama. 8 Porter 1-25. So, in Pollard v. Kibbe, 14 Pet. 355. The cause came to this Court from the Supreme Court of Alabama. That Court held that the act of 1824, above referred to, conferred the better title on the defendant. This Court reversed the decision because the land in dispute was excepted from the act; and declared that the Private Act of 2 July, 1836, vested the title in fee in Pollard's heirs, the plaintiffs in the suit. They are now in as grantees, by force of the private act, under the sanction of our decision. The land lies east of Water Street, and was covered with water at high tide, the same as the land in controversy.
If Congress had no power to grant, the act of 1836 is void, and our decision wrong, as was that of the Supreme Court of Alabama in the same case, for they held the previous act of 1824 was a valid grant. Many of the flowed lands must have private owners. The old states are in the constant habit of granting them; in some, they are supposed to be of almost equal value with all the high lands; so it was confidently asserted in the argument of the cause of Martin v. Waddell, in regard to New Jersey. The great oyster banks are certainly worth many millions of dollars in that state, and are fast becoming private property. If the
United States cannot make titles, the new states must make them. The City of Mobile, on the riverfront, two squares deep, is without title, if it be true, that the act of 1824 is void for want of power in the United States to give title. I think it clear that the assumption of abandonment, because of the mode of surveying the public lands, cannot be maintained.
Nor has Alabama a better founded or more plausible claim to the lands between high and low water mark, on the ground that she was admitted into the Union on the equal footing with the original states. What was the condition of these states (the old thirteen) when they entered the Union? In Massachusetts (including what is now Maine), all the right of soil to lands, so far as the sea ebbed and flowed, by the colonial charter (to the extent of one hundred rods), was in the owners of the shores, and although the charter was annulled, the right was maintained as the common law of the state, at the revolution. The law and decisions are found in Angel on Tide Waters 108, and in Dane's Abr. 694, 698.
So, in New York, lands were held under tidewater, especially about the city, by individual titles. Mayor v. Scott, 1 Caines 543.
So it was in West New Jersey -- and to a great extent, in Pennsylvania and Maryland. The authorities will be found in Martin v. Waddell, decided at this term (post, 41 U. S. 367). It was only in those states where the royal charters had been surrendered or forfeited to the Crown, and in which no grants to flowed lands had been made (if any such there were), that they devolved on the state as a consequence of the revolution. That mud flats were then held in private property, in every state of the Union, can hardly be doubted. If one was in this condition, it is enough for our purpose. In Massachusetts, they were all thus held. If Alabama came in "on the same footing" with Massachusetts; then all the mud flats may be held in private property also in Alabama.
The stipulation in the ordinance of 1787, and which is repeated in the resolution admitting Alabama, guaranteeing to the new state equal rights with the old, referred to the political rights and sovereign capacities left to the old states, unimpaired by the Constitution of the United States, and which were confirmed to them by that instrument. Whilst territories, the people inhabiting the
countries now composing the new states, were subject to the will of Congress; unrestrained further than restrictions were imposed by the federal Constitution, and by compact, where the lands had been ceded by an original state, or by treaty, when acquired from a foreign nation. The power of Congress was, and now is, in the territories, almost absolute. From this power, the territory is withdrawn, to the same extent, on entering the Union, that the original states were exempt, when they formed the Constitution, having equal capacities of self-government with the old states, and equal benefits under the Constitution of the United States. This is the extent of the guarantee. That each and all of the states have sovereign power over their navigable waters, above and below the tide, no one doubts. And it is just as free from doubt, that the shores and banks of such waters, and the mud flats flowed by them, are the subject of private ownership. The property cannot be appropriated, to the obstruction or injury of the public use in the water, further than the state government permits, and if it is attempted, the obstruction may be abated as a nuisance. Whether the Bay of Mobile has been obstructed is not a matter of inquiry; no one pretends that it has been. The question is could the flat between high water mark and the channel of the river be granted by the individual owner, the United States? That it could is, I think, free from doubt, and that the act of 1824 is valid and passed the title to the corporation of Mobile unless the defendant's premises were excepted from the grant by the act.
The first section vests in the mayor and aldermen all the lands between high water mark and the channel of the river in front of the city that lie below North Boundary Street and above Church Street. From which general grant are excepted, by the second section, lots on which improvements had been made, lying east of Water Street and fronting the water lots, during the Spanish government, lying west of Water Street. The improved property was, by the act, vested in the proprietor or occupant of the lot fronting and opposite on the west of the street, or in the purchaser of the new lot from the owner of the old one.
That the improvement must have been on the eastern and new water lot is, to my mind, plain from the reading of the act, so it has been held by the courts of Alabama, as appears by the case
of Pollard's heirs; that this has been the construction of the act by the parties interested, is manifest, from all the controversies in regard to this property, and those at whose instance the act was passed are the best judges of its meaning. 25 U. S. 12 Wheat. 200. The old lots were only referred to, to give locality to the new, in case of existing improvements east of Water Street. If the proprietor (which means owner) of the old lot had improved on the flat in front of it, then he was entitled, by the act, to an equal width, extending to the channel of the river, as compensation for his improvement. The Fort Charlotte lots were sold to a company, and they improved, before 1824, in front of six of them, and sold to Charles L. Matthews, who continued improving in 1823 and 1824, and has occupied the premises since; and he and his tenants defend the suit. The property was valued, for the purpose of taxation, at $88,000 at the time of the trial; it was worth only $4,000 in 1823, and it was proved the increased value resulted from the labor of Charles Matthews.
The circuit court charges the jury (amongst other charges)
"That if the lot specified in the patents 10, 11, 12, &c., were proved to have been bounded by high water mark at the time of the purchase, then they came within the terms of lots known under the Spanish government as water lots, as used in the act of Congress,"
and if it was proved that the lot claimed was east of Water Street and in front of the lots covered by the patents, and that it had been improved before the passage of the act, it was vested in the proprietors and occupants of the lots held under the patents, and this although Water Street did intervene between the lots claimed and those held under the patents. The charge is deemed correct. The objection that the lands in front of the Fort Charlotte lots did not pass by the act of 1824, has nothing in it. The first and second sections refer to the same premises; the first covers all the lands between high water mark and the channel of the river and lying between Church Street to North Boundary Streets; of this there can be no doubt; and the exceptions in the second section apply to every part of the grant, made by the first. On these grounds, the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.


text:
CEOS.Slider.Transitions.ZoomOut = new CEOS.Slider.Transition({
	title: "Zoom out",

	init: function(el, dur, sender) {
		new CEOS.Slider.Animation(
			'ceos-trans-zoom-out',
			[
				CEOS.Slider.getVendorCSSPrefix() + 'transform: scale(2)',
				'opacity: 0'
			],
			[
				CEOS.Slider.getVendorCSSPrefix() + 'transform: scale(1)',
				'opacity: 1'
			]
		);

		new CEOS.Slider.Animation(
			'ceos-trans-zoom-out-hide',
			null,
			['opacity: 0']
		);
	},

	transitionIn: function(el, dur, sender) {
		el.style.zIndex = 1;
		el.style.display = 'block';

		var animation = CEOS.Slider.getVendorAnimationPrefix();

		el.style[animation + 'Name'] 						= 'ceos-trans-zoom-out'
		el.style[animation + 'Duration'] 				= dur / 1000 + 's';
		el.style[animation + 'TimingFunction'] 	= 'ease';
		el.style[animation + 'Delay'] 					= '0s';
		el.style[animation + 'IterationCount'] 	= 1;
		el.style[animation + 'Direction'] 			= 'both';
		el.style[animation + 'PlayState'] 			= 'running';
	},

	transitionOut: function(el, dur, sender) {
		el.style.zIndex = 0;

		var animation = CEOS.Slider.getVendorAnimationPrefix();

		el.style[animation + 'Name'] 						= 'ceos-trans-zoom-out-hide'
		el.style[animation + 'Duration'] 				= dur / 1000 + 's';
		el.style[animation + 'TimingFunction'] 	= 'ease';
		el.style[animation + 'Delay'] 					= '0s';
		el.style[animation + 'IterationCount'] 	= 1;
		el.style[animation + 'Direction'] 			= 'both';
		el.style[animation + 'PlayState'] 			= 'running';
	}
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
07 Gold - CTO›
7.1 ASEG-PESA_2015_Abstract_Submission ADR RESULTS v3 SR-GC-BC
The lack of modern mining in Charters Towers is linked to the difficulties associated with accurately pinpointing high-grade gold-bearing lodes on host fractures. A geophysical survey of the Charters Towers area has been carried out by ADROK using a non-destructive, non-invasive surface-based technique termed Atomic Dielectric Resonance (ADR). A vertical log is generated for selected sites and the resonance energy (E-ADR) used to pinpoint sulphide bearing lodes within granitic host rocks below the site. Preliminary results show that the technique can successfully pinpoint sulfide and associated gold mineralisation to a depth of up to 1000m. A total of nine scans or "Virtual Boreholes" over three main ore-bearing fractures in Charters Towers have correctly identified the depth and presence of known sulfide ore zones with a maximum depth error of 13m. In some scans, the presence of anomalies at unexpected depths are interpreted to represent potential sulfide targets. The ADR technique is particularly useful in Charters Towers, for example, where other techniques such as TEM, magnetics, gravity or seismic reflection surveying cannot be used due to access or other anthropogenic factors. Results so far indicate that the technique represents a significant advance in the pre-drilling identification of target sulfides.
Key words: Atomic Dielectric Resonance (ADR), Adrok, gold exploration, virtual borehole, Charters Towers.
The Charters Towers gold field located in NE Queensland, Australia is one of the richest gold fields in Australia having produced over 7 million ounces of gold since discovery in 1872 (Figure 1). Approximately 6.6 million ounces of gold were extracted from underground over the main period of mining that extended from discovery in 1872 until near closure of the field in 1917. Since 1917, several major companies including Western Mining, Homestake-BHP, Normandy-Mt Leyshon, CRA and Gold Mines of Australia have held exploration licenses over parts of Charters Towers and all have carried out major phases of exploration. However, none of these companies have been successful in pinpointing an economically viable deposit. Citigold (formerly Charters Towers Gold) is the only company to have successfully operated large-scale open pit and underground mines in Charters Towers since 1917 with a total production of over 100,000 oz. of gold.
The Charters Towers goldfield is characterised by narrow vein style mineralisation. Gold and associated sulfides (galena, pyrite and sphalerite) occur as discontinuous pods or lenses of massive sulfide within narrow (< 2m thick) quartz-dominated veins (Figure 2). The veins themselves are hosted almost exclusively within a few granite plutons that range from tonalitic to granodioritic in composition (Figure 1). An alteration zone of chlorite, sericite and epidote is present in the hanging and foot wall of the mineralised structure but typically penetrates just a few meters into the granitic host rocks.
The geometry of the fractures and associated veins hosting the mineralisation is relatively consistent across the gold field. The largest structures such as the >2 Moz Au Brilliant Reef trend approximately east-west and dip to the north between 40 and 60 degrees (Figure 1). Higher grade structures (up to 8 oz/t Au) structures are characteristically shallow dipping to the north-east (< 45 degrees) and contain less tonnes. Both types of structure are targets for exploration but the style of mineralisation negates the use of typical exploration methodologies.
The high-grade mineralisation occurs as pods and lenses that are typically less than 50m in the longest dimension and less than 1m in thickness. The small size of the lenses combined with the target depth of mineralisation at over 300m limits the use of more traditional exploration techniques. Several geophysical methods have been intensively tested by Citigold including TEM, down-hole EM, IP and borehole radar but none have successfully defined a target. In addition, the deposit lies directly below the town of Charters Towers (Figure 1) which, due to difficulties associated with access and infrastructure, renders most of these techniques useless. To date, only drilling has successfully identified a mineable, sub-surface high-grade ore pod.
Figure 1. Simplified geological map of the Charters Towers area. Major gold bearing structures are shown in red with those referred to in the text labelled with respective names. The three areas of investigation with ADR are numbered 1-3.
In September 2013, Citigold trialled the Atomic Dielectric Resonance (ADR) method offered by Adrok. The ADR technique utilises specialized equipment used to transmit radiowave and microwave energy. The transmitted energy, rather than being rapidly absorbed like unconditioned electromagnetic waves, passes through most materials (it has problems with dense metallic masses). As it travels it causes the electrons it strikes to resonate in a characteristic manner. This resonance releases energy which is transmitted in part back to a surface detector. A spectral response can be gained from the return transmission because the resonant energy of the signal is analyzed and compared with a library of known patterns, to give a material classification that resembles a "Virtual Borehole Log", showing, for example, lithology by depth. Depths are classified according to a time base just as in a radar scan; the longer the return time of an "echo", the deeper the target. Data resolution is many times greater than acoustic imaging methods such as seismic or ultrasound, or other radar imaging such as ground penetrating radar (GPR). Adrok's technology measures subsurface (a) dielectric permittivity; (b) spectral (energy, frequency and phase) and (c) material resonance, from ground level, without physically boring the ground.
The ADR technique is also non-invasive and therefore suitable for use in a populated area such as Charters Towers. The energy employed is very low (less than a watt), and the waves generated are non-destructive, so there is no detectible chemical or biological change in the materials under investigation.
Preliminary results show that the technique has the capacity to correctly identify sulfide mineralisation hosted by narrow vein structures and therefore represents a significant advance in geophysics where access or deposit type limits the use of other techniques. Results from pre- and post-survey diamond drilling confirm the target anomalies identified using the ADR technique and support the geological interpretation that significant gold-bearing lodes exist beneath Charters Towers.
Methods and results
1. ADR methodology and data processing
Energy logs and the harmonic data sets are generated by conducting a "stare scan" whereby the Transmitter and Receiver Antennas are placed stationary at a fixed point, spacing of 300mm between Transmitter and Receiver sensors, with apertures at an elevation of 400mm above the ground. At each site, four stares were conducted, two with both antennas attached, a third where only the receiver was active and fourth where neither the Transmitter (Tx) nor Receiver (Rx) were active.
Three independent statistical variables are selected for the harmonic analyses. The mean energy (E-Mean), resonance energy (E-ADR), and reflective energy (E-Gamma) responses are measured over a chosen harmonic number (frequency) range selected to highlight the unique signal response of the material. Similar statistical measurements are made regarding the frequency responses (F-Mean, F-ADR and F-Gamma).
An energy log (E log) of the energy returned back to the ADR receiver from the subsurface reflections from the Earth's Crust is calculated. The E log is produced by sub-sampling the Stare scan image data in equal time intervals. A Fourier Transform is conducted on each sub-image, whereby the energy and frequency content is computed. A mean energy decibel value is calculated for each sub-image, which provides the energy reading at that depth.
2. Rock types suitable for distinction
The ore lodes at Charters Towers are well suited to the ADR technique. As described, the massive sulfide lenses are enclosed within quartz, altered granite and a relatively uniform host granodiorite to tonalitic rocktype. The dielectric properties differ markedly between these two types. Adrok's technology can be trained on known geology to build up a reference database against which to correlate data collected from new, unknown locations. For this geophysical survey Adrok collected data within an area that has several physical drill holes, and has been allowed access to borehole logs from these holes. Adrok found that the dielectric properties of the rock types and the energy responses of the rocks and minerals were distinctive and could be used to classify the different rock layers and mineralisation zones.
The dielectric measurements are an index of the rate of transmission of the ADR radiowave-lased beam through a medium relative to the transmission rate of the beam through air. This is also sometimes called the Transmissivity Index. Air has a dielectric constant of 1(ϵr). For a medium such as limestone the dielectric constant (ϵr) is typically 9.
3. Data presentation
Results for only the Energy Log (E-log) are presented here. The E log results are presented on a log scale, with values of less than 0.01 considered as anomalous and therefore significant and indicative of target sulfides. In some scans, multiple values of < 0.01 were identified suggesting more than one ore-bearing target.
4. Selection of ADR scan locations
Figure 2. Diagram showing the ~100-200mm intercept in diamond drill hole CT8205 pinpointed by ADR scan A56.
Sites were selected based on a few simple criteria including: 1) adjacent to an existing vertical drill hole where the geology and intercept grades were known, 2) where post-ADR drilling was to be completed soon after data acquisition, 3) in areas where mineralisation is known to exist from Citigold's underground mining operations or, 4) in areas where the depth to the intercept is inferred but the presence of sulfides had not been definitively proven.
Scan A09 was used for equipment calibration and was completed adjacent to an existing vertical diamond drill hole where sample assays and a complete geological log were provided to Adrok prior to processing of the data. In all other cases, the geology and target depth were unknown to Adrok until after processing had been completed. In one case a single vertical diamond drill hole (CT8205) was drilled parallel to the ADR scan (scan A56) to test the accuracy and significance of anomalies identified in the pre-drilling scan; the results from this scan are presented in detail below. Scans A37 and A62 were carried out over areas where mineralisation was known from underground mining carried out by Citigold immediately below the scan collar location (Figure 1).
The results from 9 "Virtual Boreholes" are discussed below with the results from a single hole (A56) presented in detail.
Three main areas were selected to test the ADR technique: Central (ADR scan A50), Warrior (ADR scans A09, A48, A62, A84) and Imperial (ADR scans A22, A30, A34 and A56) (Figure 1). At each location, the ADR method accurately identified the location (depth) of the sulfide-bearing structure.
The maximum difference between the expected depth of a sulfide structure and the anomaly in the ADR scan was 13m. This result was found in ADR scan A84 which recorded an anomaly in the E log plot at 365m while the associated diamond drill hole (CT3067) exhibited a high grade sulfide intercept at 378m. Other scans where diamond drilling or underground operations could constrain the exact depth of the sulfides were within 5m error and typically within less than 2m. Initial results indicate that the variability may be influenced by the thickness/width of the intercept and the lead grade of the sulfides within the intercept.
Table 1. Assay details from intercept in diamond drill core CT8205.
Drill hole (CT8205) and ADR Scan (A56)
Diamond drill hole CT8205 was drilled after acquisition of the ADR data. Presented below is the return energy plot for ADR scan A56 (Figure 3). The principal anomaly in the scan occurs at -467.91m below surface. Other minor anomalies in the scan between 0.01 and 0.1 occur at approximately 178m, 338m and 456m. Assay results from the parallel diamond drill core confirm a high-grade sulfide intercept at 463m down hole (Table 1).
Figure 3. Plot of ADR energy response for scan A56. The anomaly at 462.93m corresponds with a sulfide ore pod contained within the E07 structure.
Scan A56 and parallel drill hole CT8205 were completed as part of a four-scan survey over the north-dipping Imperial structure. Two scans, A30 and A34 were completed in the same area as A56 presented above (Figure 1). The ADR results show the presence of two possible sulfide bearing structures. These results differed from the existing structural interpretation of the area which showed only one north-dipping structure. Post-ADR drilling in the area has confirmed the presence of two structures, both of which contain sulfide mineralisation. In addition, scan A30 contains an unidentified, undrilled anomaly at approximately 800m depth. A fourth scan (A22) was completed to the west of the interpreted Imperial structure in an area where no drilling has been carried out. The scan returned an anomaly at a depth that fell within just a few meters of the inferred depth of the structure.
Four additional scans were completed at the Warrior mine site (Figure 1). Two scans A62 and A84 were carried out in areas where part of the high-grade sulfide ore zone had not been removed during underground mining operations. In both scans, the anomaly was within 13m of the known ore zone. In addition, both scans exhibited a second anomaly approximately 60-80m shallower than the target structure. A re-examination of drill hole data after the ADR results were obtained revealed that the anomaly in the ADR data corresponds with high-grade intercepts in an as yet un-defined structure that lies above the target structure. Drill hole intercepts on this unidentified structure include gold assays of 370g/t (CT4045), 15.2 g/t (CT4038) and 34.8 g/t (CT2088).
Scan A48 was carried out to the north of the Warrior mine site (Figure 1). The ADR data was processed to a depth of 1000m below the surface with the results returning two significant anomalies. The most significant anomaly occurred at 884m which is consistent with the inferred down-dip extension of the north-dipping E03 structure presented in Citigold's Mineral Resources and Reserves Report (Towsey, 2012). The second anomaly in the ADR scan occurs at 675.5m and is an unidentified structure.
The only scan completed and analysed in detail in the Central area is A50 (Figure 1). The ADR data was processed to a depth of 1000m and aimed at pinpointing the down-dip and western extension of the 2.2 Moz Brilliant Reef. The deeper of the two anomalies at -710m fell within 1m of the inferred structure surface published in Towsey (2012). The anomaly at 220m below surface has not been drilled and remains as a potential target.
The results of the survey are preliminary and further drilling is being carried out to confirm significance of the ADR anomalies. Nevertheless, the surveys completed so far indicate the ADR can be used prior to drilling to identify sulfide-bearing fractures.
Charters Towers is one of the highest grade gold deposits in Australia but the style of mineralisation and the position of the deposit below a large country town negates the use of many geophysical techniques. Results from the Atomic Dielectric Resonance (ADR) survey carried out by Adrok has demonstrated initial success in identifying sulfide ore pods and lenses within large planar fractures that characterise the Charters Towers area. All of the ADR scans completed at the time of writing correctly targeted the ore-zone within the target structure. The anomalies presented in the ADR data exhibited a maximum error of 13m.
Ongoing testing of the method is underway with several parallel drill holes to be completed where ADR scans exhibit anomalies indicative of sulfide targets.
The style of mineralisation in Charters Towers, that is, pods of massive sulfides in a relatively uniform granitic host, make it ideally suited to the ADR technique due to the distinct difference in dielectric properties of sulfides versus the granite.
Towsey, C.A.J., 2012, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves 2012 Charters Towers Gold Project for Citigold Corporation Limited. Pathfinder Exploration Pty Ltd. 173 pp.