Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-02-08
THE MINERS, MEETING.
what Is and what Is Not Requisite
to its Legality.


EDITOR SENTINEL: Referring to the cal
for a meeting Of the miners Of Eureka
Mining District to consider a code OF a
and regulations for the district, draf ted by
a committee appointed for that purpose,
there is a paragraph in that cali by the
Mining Recorder which requires some no
tice.
The Mining Recorder seems TO place
great stress upon the provision in the sec
ond paragraph, section 5, OF the laws
adopted at q meeting Of the miners held
Sept. 10, 1864, which reads as follows:
"These rules and laws may be altered or
amended by a two-thirds vote Of those
owning claims or mining ground in this
district, after 20 days notice." etc. In
the printed slip of the laws adopted there
is no record or evidence showing there
were two-thirds Of the miners in the dis
trict present. On June 5, 1865, and on
Sept. 5, 1865, other meetings were held at
which the code was amended, and yet there
Is nc record of two-thirds of the miners OF
the district being present. On Feb. ~,
1869, still another meeting was held, at
which further amendments were made,
and still the record is silent about two
thirds Of the miners being present.
The idea of the Recorder requiring two
thirds of the miners in the district to be
present before any revision or amendments
can be made Of or to the local avs Of the
| district, is an insult to tho intelligence OF
the miners in this district. There is not
q hall or public building in the State Of
Nevada capable Of holding "two-thirds Of
the miners and mine owners Of this dis
trict. The laws of Congress contain no
such provision, and why should the miners
Of this district shackle themselves In that
manner? By reference to the mining
Acts Of Congress and decisions of the
COMMISSIONS Of the General Land Office
in Washington, it will be found that the
utmost latitude is given the miners.
The great trouble with the miners is,
they have never availed themselves Of all
the privileges granted them by Congress.
They are now awakening to a sense Of their
responsibilities, and are going to assert
them and bring order out Of chaos now
unfortunately existing in this district.
Therefore, let a good number OF miners
n mine owners, say not less than Is, at
tend that meeting, hear the report Of the
committee read, discuss it n adopt so
much Of it as will promote their best in
~terests, provided they do not conflict with
the Act Of Congress, the Recorder and law
yers to the contrary notwithstanding.
This movement on the part of the min
ers is q wise one, and commends itself to
all intelligent miners. The revised code
framed by the committee supplies a want
long felt, it simplifes matters, will check
litigation to a great extent, make claims
more definite, and il adopted will injure
no one unless they be the legal fraternity.
Respectfully yours, P~RospEcToR.
We have to differ from Prospector as to
what is the number of miners and mine
owners required by law for a meeting.
The laws of Congress, OF course, do not
apply to these details, which are left for
local legislation entirely to the miners.
District laws, not in conflict with the laws
OF Congress, however, are binding in the
Courts. In the laws Of the District of
Eureka these words occur: "These rules
and laws may be altered or amended by q
two-thirds vote Of those owning claims or
mining ground in this district" etc.
Language could hardly be palmer. There
can be no doubt about the meaning OF the
words. Whether or not such a require
ment is insulting to the intelligence
OF the miners, cuts no figure
in the consideration. The question
II there be any, is Of law. The argument
that the two-thirds vote provision may be
~disregarded because there Is no record Of
the district laws. carried to its legitimate
conclusions, is that there is no obligation
to comply with any portion Of said laws,
in fact, that they may be ignored entirely.
II this be true. II does not seem consistent
to "~revise and amend " these laws. They
cannot be culled from for what may be
convenient and put aside on account OF
features they contain that may not be
agreeable. It would, at any rate, be safer
to comply with the provisions Of the dis
trict rules and laws as far as possible, lest
by failure to do so troublesome complica-
tions may be the result.