Arizona silver belt., 1888-08-11

tien of vein can be proven without expsnaye expert testimony and exam inationp How many litigatious would just such cases cause, to the detrlment of the mining operator and the min ing interest in general?
 In Mr. Stewards bill, it must he understood, it is not the restriction m locating more than one claim on the same lode that is objectionable, but that the purchase, the possession ey any means, even by Inheritance, is prohibited, and the proposed law IS not to be even compared with tho lim- itation as provided In the law of 1866, notwithstanding the erroneous stato- ment of the San Francesca Chronicle, of April 27, 1888, that Mir, Stewards bill had b0en the original intention of that law. s
 wish to refer to another part of the new bill. Providing for annual work on located claims, the bill says:
 "The period within which the an- nual work required to be done by this section shall commence at l2 o'clock meridian on the first day of August of each year. Provided, that upon claims already located previous to tho first day of March in any year, the annual work shall be performed on such claims for that year pmer to 12 clock meridian on the first day of August next succeeding And the tims for performing annual work on claims heretofore located is hereby extended to the first day of Apgust at l2 o'clock meridian.
 After reading the above portion of the amendment to Sec. 2324 of the Revised Statutes, the question sug- gests itself; When must the annual werk be performed on claims located after the lst of March, in August of the same year, or the year succeeding? The section is dumb on that point. Then again, what IS meant by, And tho time for performing annual work on claims heretofore located is hereby extended to the first day of August at l2 o'clock meridian? We interpret it as meaning that on all claims To- cated prior to the passage of this (Stewart's) Act, work shall not be re- quirsd to be done until August lst of the year succeeding. But if this is Mr. Stewart intent, he has certainly failed to express himself clearly. In fact his language is about as am5igu ous as it possibly could be mase
 have already alluded to tho pro yisc, introduced by Ar. Stewart, that the owner of claim has the right Of way through and over any adionIng tor etheO mining claim; that he can construct ditches, roads, canals, drive tunnels, make cuts for the purpose of developing his mine, provided he is liable to have damages assessed against him, If damages occur. It further provides, that ''thc rghts and ease ments reserved under the provision of thIs section in patents herstofore is- sued shall be regulated and made available as herein prescribed" In issuing new patents such conditions may, of course, be added; but the for mer patents issued and by which the United States conveys full title and ownership in fee, dc not contain but few eff these provisions, and whether such regulations can be enforced upon these IS at least questionable. This last amendment, if it can be made to apply to nnnes already patented, is proper, and in the interest of the min. ing industry. Other matters in ike bill arc of no great importance, but improvements on tue now existing law.
 It IS to be regretted that Ar. Stew art has net devised more effective means to prevent the locating oi mines by the score, by one individual, with out even prstensc efwork performed tor years in succession
 It is hard to conceive how as emi- nent mining lawyer as Senator Stew art, should have overlooked the effects of his bill, if strictly carried cut. It seems far more probable that the whole is well planned design, the obact of winch the author should be called upon to explain.
 A. TRpPEL, M. E.
 sz-~z.r.sszr.s,sss-ezssyzrx The proposition to build a railroad