The Montana post., 1868-12-11

r. H q
M,x,xe Law.-what i the public opinion
about. the L. 5. Law of IsG6 Are patents
being generally applied for What are the
local regulations in the different districts
Can law be- devised to grant patents for
placer mines. State defects. and if improve
ments are possible, suggest them
In the Ga=etta Of Saturday We ipd sew
.ral columns of letters from Prot. w. :.
K-yes. Mr. q. Ii. O'Bannon. and. Mr..
tieorg- H. Foote from the for,hcon-
ing report of Prot. keyes discussing one
or two Of the above points. While each
is positive and even arbitrary on some
points. there is a marked difference OF
opinion. and the subject may be still open
tor discussion. Prot. Reyes says: Il
am constrained 10 characterize the law n
failure" and again that it is . vicious
and iuexpedient Mr. OBannon that
its workings have not been satisfactory.
and Mr.. Foote that the act is still re-
yarded with great favor by majority
of the the miners although he thinks
il necessary TO eradicate the "acres
and traets and sell by the foot that a
latin maxim quoted. may remain in full
force. Again. Mr.. keyes objects to the
local Montann laws because " they are
the crude theories of an agricultural pop
ulation and favors the California and
Nevada statutes because they are found-
ed ON the Mexican experiences of centu-
rj.s. while Mr.. o'Bannon in pronouneing
the United States Mineral Act unsatis-
factory in it's workings, says ..it appears
10 have been gotten up with direct and
especial reference to the rules and Gus
toms of the mines of Nevada and Cali
forpia." These con,-arieties, if incorpo-
rated in n Rerort. will not. we think,
serv. 10 .uligh,en Congress greatly as
IN ,b,. desires of Montapians and they
overlook manifold benefits in seeking
subordinate defects The object of the
gentlemen is a oommendable one. if it
is 10 elicit opinions from practical
miners. and those conversant with the
law. but We should regret To see the re-
port hastily closed up in its present con-
dition as IL is not improbable a more
comprehensive view of the Mineral Law
may h. taken by persons having a thor>
ough practical knowledge of the bill.
and viewing i. in it's effects upon all
communities rather than from the
Montana stand-point a,op.
We think Mr.. OBJ. has made two
serious mistakes-first, in overlooking
the history and general effect of the
law. and second, in attributing To de-
fects in the law the unsatisfactory
Workings almost wholly attributable
to the stupid. impractical, circumlocu-
ton. inc, n.prehensible instructions
from the Commissioned. which have
been several times rescinded. amended,
and befogged. The law has defects,
but its purpose was beneiicent and gen
erous to the miners, and we are not
surprised They look upon it with great
favor Read Its history. Mr.. Julian,
of Indiana. at the second session OF the
:,9th Congress. introduced bill provid-
ing for the sale of all mineral lands,
quartz and placer, to the highest bids
der, in five and ten acre parcels. wholly
disregarding the pOssessOry right
of miners ani all local laws rules
or customs. Two objects We're
to he ob;ained-first, to derive a
revenue for the Government end pass
the title from it TO a m0Ried monopoty.
Those persons who were on the Pacific
coast remember well the just indigna-
tioL expressed against the project, and
their declarations that should it become
a law they would protect their rights
to the mines they had discovered, los
Gated and were in peaceable possession
of, though il necessitated resort to
arms. The bill passed the House, and
coming up ia the Senate. MIR. Stewart,
of Nevada. and if he ever did good ser~
vice to miners it was then, reported a
substitute therefor, as the title indi-
Gates, which, after long and bitter
struggle, became our present Mineral
Land Act. II was framed by the repre-
sentatives OF mining States, men WHO
had passed large portion OF their lives
on the Pacific coast. 1t attained the
following objects, vital to their constitu-
ents
=. -, - t; .,,,os, ,n;