Eureka weekly sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1887-1902, 1888-03-24
AnEsDINe rmx mIxIxs LAWS.

80 Proprietor MAKES Queer sux.
gesti-us Go NJ aator siewart- 81 us
Laws ave decd 10. amt Need
No NeuEey ing.
4 correspondent OF the San Fran
cisco Mining and Scientific Press oil
the 10th inst, signing himself "a
Prospector," claiming 10 have had 25
years experience as such, must be
| either an idiot or n crank. II his ideas,
as expressed in his alleged letter to
Senator Stewart, OF which a copy is
submitted for publication, were car
ried out, and the mining laws amend
ed TO suit him, the poor miner, in nine
cases out oil ten, would necessarily
quit prospecting. The correspondent
evidently has no idea of the uiner
GUS difficulties that the actual pros
pcctor has TO encounter while develop
ing a mine after he has discovered il.
In this district, Senator Ste Aart well
knows that it is necessary, in most
cascs, that the prospector at least hold
two or three claims adjoining and
abreast OF one another in order that
he may be secured in holding the lode.
Why, then. should il be made imper-
alive upon a poor man to perform his
woik OF development upon the sew
eral claims while he may, by concen-
trating his labor in n place, well Sc
lected for the purpose, open up his
mine in a more expedient manner?
Why should any m~ine-owner, rich or
poor, be compelled to coyote on the
surface, when by ~tunneling or deep
mining he has u much better oppor-
tunity to develop his property, and
put it into q paying condition? 1t is
true that an amendment, such as "A
Prospector proposes, would give the
wealthy miner an advantage over the
poorer, but that is all the benefit il
would be. On the other hand it would
drive out OF the field entirely the
poorer class OF ~prospectors, who have
already too many obstacles in the way
OF success, who are mainly the pio-
neers OF new camps, the discoveries OF
new mines, and who generally pave
the way to the fortunes Of mining
communities. This is not all that it is
proper To saw on the subject. "a
~Prospector," wants to have u law en-
acted TO provide that a locator shall
perform $i00 in labor upon his claim
before he will be allowed to record it.
AS the public record is the main evil
dence of the possession Of u locator,
the law proposed by "a Prospector"
would he too much in favor Of the
d" lazy fellow" who, OIL finding the
real prospector had discovered a valu-
able lode, could, by fraudulent mis-
representations, locate such lode. and
be the first to file it Tor record. Again,
to require that 800 worth OF labor
shall be performed on the groupings OF
each and every claim held by u miner
in addition to the amount OF labor per-
formed in a tunnel, or in any under
ground opening, would entail Il great
hardship on the poorer mine owner, as
every dollar so expended on the sur-
face would be u bar and hindrance to
underground development. Mines are
not usually developed by scratching on
the surface, and when a miner has
only a few hundred dollars to pur-
chase his grub and supplies with, If
compelled to apply his limited means
so surface developments he must as
suredly abandon the underground
work, which, in the end, must prove
the most valuable to the property.
The United States mining laws, as
they nov stand, are good enough for
~, and need no such mcnkeying with
as the Mining and Scientific Press cor
respondent, \ Prospector, proposes.