The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1889-09-21
THE STEWART MINING BILL.


A correspondent writing from
: Glendale, Montana, to the MininI
: and Scientific Press Of San Fran
) cisco, makes the following com
ments on that portion of Senate
Stewards mining bill which relates
to representative work on mining
claims and relocating of said claims
} This correspondent makes som'
very good points, which are worthy
|, Of attention:
: There 10 no law in existence that 80 70
tards the development of the mining re-
sources Of the country as that which com
pels the honest prospector to do the rep
resenting OF worthless co-owners in order
to prevent the forfeiture of his owr
rights. 1t is q poor law that compels a
man to labor in the interest OF one who
will not labor for himself.
For instance, when James Faithful,
Pete Doolittle, and Bill Blk became CO.
owners in mining claim, Bill Blk can
graduated himself that James Faithful il
not only hopeful Of success, but q hard
worker besides.
So he said to himself: an just let my
co-owners perform the assessment work,
and IT the vein proves to be worthless
they may advertise me out and take it for
their pains; but If they make a lucky
strike III then have no difficulty in rust
ling up the stuff to pay my portion, and
claim my share Of the ore as we'll as to
1 ofo1n ~ int ho
As to Pete Doolittle, he intends to help
develop the claim, but would q good deal
rather hang around the saloons to play
cards and drink rotgut; hence, after
few vain efforts at something that worries
him little he starts off in i'll humor,
curses his luck, and gets on another spree.
Now James Faithful, who, if sole own
er, or if agreeable to co-Owners, would
have worked zealOusly to develop the
claim, under present circumstances, rath
er than he the slave of worthless co-own-
ers, reluctantly abandons the claim, which
is subsequently jumped by Jack Sharp,
who is gambler by profession, and never
prospected an hour in his life, but is al
ways on the lookout to speculate on the
labor Of others.
The important question now is "Why
did Jack Sharp have better right to re-
locate that claim than James Faithful"
l say most emphatically-when q CO.
owner does the full representing of q
mining claim, he is more justly entitled |
to all OF 1t than stranger would he were
all the cO-Owners to abandon it. The |
stranger does not have to advertise. And
a man should not be put to unreasonable
expense to advertise his co owners for
any length Of time.
Let him post notice of relocation on
the claim in conspicuous place and
have said notice recorded within a reas-
enable time, and if any co owner acts un-
Justly In this, let him be prosecuted for
attempting to receive value under false
pretense, or on some other charge as the
aw may prescribe.
The above illustration does not show
Ill the evil effects. Presuming that j mes
Faithful concludes to perform all the as
'essment and acquire title to all the claim
~ advertising out his CO owners, he will
ease development just as soon as the
INIT prescribed by law is performed
Moreover, he may do ''deadwork" rather
han to expose any body of ore that he is
ed to believe exists On the claim.
Thus year after year rolls by, leaving
he country undeveloped, and no one but .
prospectOr can know what curse such {
law is. Regarding the relocating of
lain we do not consider it Just to pre- :
ent any prospector from relocating
lain which he formerly occupied.
He may have spent years of privation
nd hardship, and finally through force r
4 circumstances aided by discourage !.
aent, he abandons the claim and returns
n subsequent years to find it had been
coated and abandoned in the intervening
lme by other parties; and now, when
reater experience and more means would
nable him to develop it, the law prevents
is action, thus forcing the ground to lie
die indefinitely and preventing an hon
st prospector from reaping the rewards
+ his early labor.
Or, in another case, the former occu-
ant returns to find portion of the claim
coupled. He does not dare to relocate I
adjust his lines to the present situation,
D it is left uDoccupied or falls into the
ands of others. ;
A law that We should have is, one to !
squire 500 worth of Improvements to d
e made for the first year where the loca-
on is made on an old discovery of which a
le locators were not the original discov- &
'ers, excepting such locations as shall be q
lade within 80 days of the expiration of 0
'e representing year. h
This would prevent Dolittles and Sharps y
ON locating and holding old discoveries =
+ speculation, trusting to the labor of
hers to open up the district and enhance h
e value Of undeveloped claims. 81
A Montana law, which says that ''the q
locating of mining claim by Its occu-
'nts does not exempt the same from the =
lnusl expenditure, but such must be
just the same as if it had not
en relocated," fills all requirements to
event fraud in cases where prospectors
mp their own claims to avoid doing the j
sessment work.