The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1874-02-07
Proposed Mining Legislation.
From the Scientific Press, Jan. %

In our last issue we gave in full the pro-
posed mining law, which has been intro
duced in the House of Representatives. by
J. D. Ward, of Chicago. Speaking mildly,
it is to be hoped that our representatives in
bill Off If it becomes law it will be the
worst blow to the mining interests of the
Pacific Slope that they ever received. I'm
der it's provisions every claim holder in the
country would be obliged to apply for
pat ent within a year, and pay for it at
double the rates now necessary for lode
claims, and five times that for placer claims
This bill differs from the present law in
these important particulars: It compels all
claim holders to apply for a patent, and pay
for their claims at the rate of ten dollars
per acre within one year; while under the
law rs it now stands, the owners of mining
locations are not required to apply for a
patent unless they desire to do so, and
when application is made, the price per
acre for placer claims is $3.50. and for lode
claims $780,
The idea of this bill being "an amend
ment to an Act entitled an Act to promote
the development of the mining resources of
the United States" is pleasant little joke
on the part of the Hon. j. D. Ward, of
Chicago, who fathered the bill. Promote
the development" is gootl-as a joke.
Why, it will be the very worst possible
thing for our miners that can be done. At
present not one claim il a thousand is ever
patented, because in the first place there is
not much need of it, and in the second
place it is too expensive an operation for
eight miners out of ten.
We don't believe Mr.. Ward knows any
thing about mining or mining matters. The
act will be good one for lawyers and very
poor one for the miners. The principal OBJ
iect of the bill is to raise money from the
sale of the mines to assist in paying Off the
national debt, and lessen the burden of tax
alton. Every few years this old game of
selling the mines to pay the national debt
| comes up. The Chronicle estimates that
there are Is, 100000 acres of mineral lands,
which at $40 per acre would yield most
magnificent sum to the Treasury. Why
people buying mineral land should pay $40
per acre and people buying agricultural
/ land should only pay S1.25 per acre, we do
not see. A farmer can get his crops in the
first year; miner often works many years
with no returns In fact it takes him
year or SO to prove whether the mine is
worth even the labor expended upon it.
Must one man be compelled to buy "pig
in bag" and pay about eight times as
much as the man who sees what kind of a
pig he is buying?
We venture to say that if the bill passes
the individual miners will, many of them,
abandon the business; prospecting will not
be popular, and incorporated companies
will 'srule the roost.'' About that time
our people will begin to think that our law
makers developed the mining interests of
| the United States ON mistaken princi-
pie Small miners would have no show. It
would bankrupt our mining interests to
paid in the first year of the operation Of the
proposed new law. But what a harvest for
/ the lawyers there would be! Peahaps Mr..
Ward is one, and wants to settle ON the
Pacific Slope. What quantity of litiga-
ton there would be while all the big mines
/ were getting their patents the first year,
| and how many millions the lawyers, clerks,
surveyors, ETC., would receive as fees.
i It is impossible to sum up all the demer-
| its of this law in one newspaper article, and
we shall have something more to say con-
! cerning it in future issue. Meanwhile we
i invite correspondence on the subject, and
hope our Pacific Coast Representatives., who
ought to know something of the mining in-
| terest, will do their level bsst to fight this
bill to It's death