Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-01-24
AN 1npoRrANr mArrEn.
some suggestions to the Miners
Committee Meeting To-day.

Some Suggestions to the Miners
Committee Meeting To-day.
The committee appointed at the miners
meeting on the 18th inst, to modify and
revise the mining laws OF this district,
meets this evening at 4 O'Clock at the
Albion Mining Company's Office to act in
the premises. We understand that it is
| the intention of the committee to change
the laws in some respects, and more espe-
cially 30 as to allow miners to claim 600
feet in width instead Of 200. In our opin-
ion this is an important matter and should
be very carefully considered. II we mis-
take not, the subject was preached some
years ago, when the proposed changes were
found impracticable and were abandoned.
This committee has been authorized to
draft avs which must be first submitted
to a miners meeting to be duly called by
the Recorder, and must be passed by a two
thirds majority OF the meeting. Now comes
the question: "What is a lawful and COM
| petent meeting for the purposes proposed?'
This district, it must be remembered, is
still under the jurisdiction Of the mining
laws OF Reese River Mining District in
some particulars. 1t is provided in section
2 Of our laws that:
"These rules and laws may be altered
or amended by O two-thirds vote Of those
owning claims or mining ground in this
district, after twenty days notice OF such
intention shall have been given in some
| paper published in the county, and shall
have been posted in ths most public place
in the district"
1t is plain that there can be nc lawful
meeting unless two-thirds Of the mine
owners of the district are present. The
width OF a mining location In this district
is 200 feet. Can such an assemblage OF
miners as was held here on the 18th inst,
for example, and such an assemblsge as is
contemplated for the next, be considered
q lawful meeting for the purpose OF re-
vising the mining laws OF the district
Certainly not. Should it be determined
by any assembly Of miners that does not
come under the definition Of a " meet
ing" as given in the quoted section, to
make certain changes under discussion.
they would be void. They would have
no legal force, though recognized locally,
and might lead to serious litigation
and injure the mining interests of the
camp. Should the 200 feet rule be changed
and 600 feet put instead by a meeting IL
legally constituted, and locations be made
| Hereunder, the serious question would
| arise whether such location would hold.
1t seems that the Court would be bound
to decide against its validity, and that the
locator who may have been misled and
have acted in good faith under a false idea
in the premises, would lose all his rights
beyond the limit OF 200 feet. This is
thrown out as a suggestion in order that
when important measures are undertaken
they may be accomplished by q legal, COM
petent meeting Of two-thirds OF the mine
owners in the district, 80 that whatever Is
done will stand the test of Law and no.
body be hurt. 1t ia well to reflect also
that we are acting under the laws of an
old district, passed in 1864, which have
been amended once or twice by meetings
| of questionable authority. This district
needs a new law, and one that will
pr owe wholesome and sound all the way
through. Would it not be 6 good idea
then, in view Of this fact, TO call q meeting
about the competency and lawfulness of
which there can be nc question, OF some
convenient time, and thoroughly revise
the present laws OF the district or adopt an
entirely new set?
The following gentlemen compose the
committee appointed to modify and revise
| the present laws OF the district: E. N.
Robinson, Alex. Wilson, E. ]. Butler, ].
Z. Jones, Ed. Looney. We are satisfied Of
their ability to digest the important mat
ters under their consideration; and we are
confident also that they will do the best in
their power for the interests OF the miners
and the community at large.