Helena weekly herald. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1867-1900, 1880-12-09
No. 4

that as the Honorable Commissioner says, a
claim located during the year A. d. 1879 re-
quires an expenditure of 500 during the cal
endar year of 1880. The law upon its face
seems plain But upon properly analyzing
the act it will be found that many difficult
ties are met, and the matter is not quite so
clear as it seems at first. If the act had
been approved 90 days before it was, i. e., on
December 31st 1879, there would not be as
much difficulty in arriving at its true mean
| ing
When the question arises before the courts
the Judges will be called upon to determine
the intention of the legislators in making
the law Whether it is intended to be re-
troactive or er post .facto in its nature.
Hence as to its constitutionality, if so intend
ed. Whether the laws Of Congress are in
the nature of license or contract? And if
| they are, has the Government the legal
right to abridge the rights Of a party COM
plying with its terms, and was it the inten-
| ton of Congress 50 to do? Many other ques-
| tons may be raised, but | have given enough
to illustrate
Now we will take a hypothetical case and
work it by the rule of reducio cd absurdum
On the Both day of December, 1879, John
Doe located lode mining claim and had
the same lawfully recorded. After the loca-
tiOn and prior to the 1st of January 1880, /.
4lo 1oSt of n1ar
he expended upon his claim in labor and i'm
provements the sum Oslo He continues
work upon the mine, and eXpends from Jan
uary 1st to January 18th, 1880, the further
sum of 800. Under the law as it then stood
he has represented his claim until the 31st of
December a. D.. 1880, from which Last date
he has one year in which to place his second
years work, or until the 31st day Of Decem-
Der, A. D. 1881 This is a right assured to
him by the Government on account of his
compliance with its requirements Il contract
licensing him to hold possession for that
period Of time.
With this assurance on the part of the
government he departs from the country and
does not return until January I'd, 1881, at
which time he returns to his mine to resume
work. From the time of the location until
the completion Of the necessary representa-
ton work he labOred continuously, and fully
complied with the requirements of law He
has been absent from his claim sixteen days
less than one year Upon his return he finds
that Richard Roe had relocated the claim on
the day previous, acting under the supposed
lac laid down by this important mining de-
cision! Is it possible that John Doe can see
the force of the argument-that because dur
ing the calendar year 1880 he had expended
but 800 therefore he had forfeited his claim?
The history is not yet ended; let us trace it
further. Richard Roe believing this l. NJ. D.
to be good la,c, goes on and expends five hun
dred dollars and applies for patent. John
Doe is so obtuse that he cannot see how his
claim has lapsed and he files an adverse
claim against Richard Roes application. Will
the Hon. Commissioner, or the Hon. Secre-
tary of the Interior, say to Mr.. Doe, 'Sir,
during the calendar year 1880 you did not
expend 500 upon your claim, therefore you
have no rights which this department is
bound to respect?" No. They say: "Mr.
Doe, if you have claim to this ground Won
must commence a suit for its recovery in
court Of competent jurisdiction within thirty
days, or your claim will be forfeited" Mr.
Doe acting under the sound advice files his
complaint. Then is when the eonumd,um
is properly put, the answer to which will
be given by the court and not by the Com
missioner
The case is now in court However it is
decided the reader can substitute anv date
from January 22d. 1879, to December 31st,
1879, for the date of location above given.
and the answer will be the same.
What the decision will be has to be guessed
by the reader as well as myself Great minds
differ Doctors do not always agree | do
not expect my opinion will weigh any more
in the court than that of the Hon. Commits
sioner, therefore l will leave the problem un-
solved until the courts have decided it.
Very respectfully, GEO. b. FOOTE
The MOrey Letter.
CHICAGO, December 2.-The Times Wash
ington special saws that John T Dayennort.s