Arizona weekly enterprise., 1888-08-18
SENATOR sTEwART's MINING BILL.
[Globe Silver Beltl

We have last at a complete text of the bill introduced by Senator Stewart in the U. s. Senate, and passed by that body without a word of explanation from anybody, relying on MT. Stewards knowledge of the subjects in the bill. Fortunately, the bill has not as yet | passed the House of Representatives ; it is before the Committee on Mining, | and in the interest of mining it is to be hoped that somebody in the House will be found who Is not inclined to accept the infallibility of Senator Stewart in mining matters, and ask for some explanations, when it will be found that the bill is wanting; that 1t invites litigations; that 1t obstructs and complica.es mining by associa- tions, on scale beyond that of mere prospectors that certain passages are obscure and ambiguous, and open to diverse interpretations, which would appear in 8 multitude of instructions by successive Commissioners of the U. $. Land Office.
 I take the text of the new amend ments to the mining laws from the Florence ENTERPRISE, assuming that 1t is the correct transcript of the Stew art bill, and propose to analyze is pro- visions, accepted as gospel truth by the concentrated wisdom as represent ed in the U. s. Senate.
 The first change occurs In section 2319 U. S. Revised Statutes, which provides substantially that mineral lands are open to exploration and pur- chase, or open to occupation and pur- chase, to citizens of the United States, or such that have declared their inten- ton to become citizens. The regula- 1 tions which govern the requirement of such mineral lands simply provide that no one claim shall exceed in length along the lode or vein 1900 feet, when located; there is no other re- striction by the U. s. laws of 1871, re-
 ferring to limitations of ownership by \ locations, much less by subsequent
 purchase. The, mining law of 1866
 provides that each locator shall be linn.
 tied to 900 feet on lode-elaim, and throwing in an extra 200 feet for the discovery; but number of locators may make location jointly, not tc exceed in length 5000 feet, or the equivalent of two claims, as under tho l present law, approved May 10, 1872 , These joint owners, then, could trade
 sell or convey to any one of them, O l to an outsider, their interest, and on : party could hold under the law c l 1866 claim of 5000 feet, and in ad
 dition, there was no restriction as t
 the number of claims one party coul
 hold by purchase, nor was there an
 restriction as to henumber of patent
 one party could. hold. (See decision Q
 U. s. Land office, September 21, 1872
 Now, this is all changed by Senate
 Stewart, with the silent consent of tn
 U. s. Senate. His amendment to thi
 section reads as follows:
 "But no person shall acquire, by t
 cation or possession more than on
 mining claim on the same vein, nc ,f shall any person relocate clail 7, which he has previously located" m m", With the second part of that amend IT ment, the writer has no fault to fine i- it is simply the law as it stands nov le but as not kept It is the first part of the amendment which should be col 1t sidered seriously; it's effects, its con IS IS plications and its impracticability. nn- n passed and approved, it offers the 1t formative, to find (easily tool means " evade it, to adopt subterfuges, by ski le ful lawyers and a full purse of none, g or to restrict the working of groups sl- mines by associations or incorpo ao ations, in such manner as to dl at courage such work most seriousl nd In that case a company, as such, ca a not hold title but to one claim on u d, same lode; if it owns more, title mu ad rest i'll individual members who mt y, lease or transfer the management ey the company. How such conditiC would work, no one knows better thf ,w Senator Stewart. It Is hardly nece
 sary to mention that, in a majority an cases, large mining enterprise c' on not depend on one claim alone on | e1 same lode.
 r4 nf Again, this change works hardshi nl on the individual miner or prospectt to Supposing that he works and tolls ple one claim, and finally becomes co he vinced that the richest ore body IS ill the continuation of his vein in t ac- e neighboring claim-may this be lon u~ ;n tudal or lateral-and the claim is op .ho to location or purchase; yet he cam ell under MT Stewards law, acquire tn the claim unless he abandons the fiji 'ou one.
 CT. But another feature of importan alv ct ri, complications arising from bends, di md faulting, or other abnormities in t am vein construction. Let a vein he out it's apex in one claim and pass II ave another, then the upper part of 7iu vein is in one, the:sslower in,anoth
 At present, the law allows the follc
 ing of lode, but not the use of
 surface of the other claims for m
 developing. Yet by Mir. Stewards b
 an adjoining claim cannot be acquil
 by purchase. True, Mir. Stewart r
 vides for that, in giving rights to
 the surface of a neighbours groui
 but, while this may be all right for ture patents, it is questionable Ii sr \ regulation can be enforced upon mi { previously patented.
 Again, I would ask the question - the reader, who has any mining exI
 fence at all, in how many cases --. direct, undoubted and plain contin tion of a vein can be proven with ID expensive expert testimony and exi n- ination? How many htigations wo
 just such cases cause, to the detrim
 of the mining operator and the II
 inp interest in general?