Arizona republican., 1897-11-05
FEDERAL MINING LANDS.

FEDERAL MINING LANDS.
 Without giving its approval to the suggestions made as to the owner ship of mining claims, the Western Mining World reproduces from the Metallurgical Journal the following article, which is interesting even if some of its arguments are not con- vincing:
 The land question naturally divides into the three branches Of forestry, agricultural and mining lands. Un- der wise laws, framed so as to en- courage and protect our three most important, national, wealth producing industries, there ought to be no cause of complaint that any one of these industries encroaches or retards the development of the others.
 In the early history of the human race in Europe, this principle was early recognized; for the Roman law held that the minerals on all lands were the heritage of the man who had the courage to work them. The British crown land law, which was copied from the Roman law, is fram- ed with the same just provision in the interests of mining. The United States mining land law, in early times, in like manner reserved the minerals on all lands for the use of the miner; but, with the desire for the acquisition of wealth by the own CTS of large tracts of land in the eastern states, in the early period of our country's history, came demands and pressure which forced the untrue statement from the government of the time-that national mineral own ership was unavoidable, and the pol icy of the reserve of the minerals for the use of the mining section of the people was abandoned in the inter ests of monopoly, and the owners of the surface right or the agricultural interests. This was one of the first steps taken to build up large fortunes in the eastern states, by confscating to the surface owner or purchaser the birthright of the miner.
 Our present law, relating to federal mining lands, reserves the minerals for. the miner up till such time as $500 has been expended in actual min ing on each claim, and then, if de- sired, the title to the minerals passes to the owner of the claim. There are grave doubts in the minds of many who have had long experience in min ing, as to the wisdom of letting the ownership of the minerals pass from the government control into that of private interests, as in too many in stances it has been the cause of lock ing up mining claims from develop ment, and depriving miners of the night to work minerals, which were formerly and should still be owned by the people. At longest term of ownership, the miner is but life rented in his claim; and whether he owns the fee simple to the minerals, or if he renrs it for life, or as long a period as he works it, so as to re- tain ownership of it. amounts to the same thing in the end; for, when through death he is forced to give up the ownership of it, the claim passes to other owners or heirs who may not be inclined or willing to work it, and the district in which the claim is located is deprived of the amount of minerals which lie unworked
 When our government deeds the minerals in, under and upon any fed eral lands, pre-empted or homestead ed, to agriculturalists, railway cor poratiOns or others who are not min CTS, along with the surface right of land, they sell or dispose of that which belongs to and is by inherit ance the birthright of the miner. They infiict an injury on the mining interests of the country by retarding it's chances of development, and pre- vent the prospector from earning an honest living for himself, and pos sfbly developing minerals which would give work for the employment of hundreds of industrious miners. It will be happy day for our United States when each individual state owns the minerals within it's borders, and grants to the present owners a life lease to work the same, and passes laws to regulate mining and agricultural and railway lands, with compensation to the surface owner for all surface and roads occupied by the miner. Such a course has had to be taken in most European coun- urles, and will eventually have to be followed in the United States. In California, New Mexico and Arizona IS this especially necessary, as so much valuable mineral territory has passed under Spanish grants to fn- divIdual owners, who will not work it or allow others to do so, and con- sequently the progress of these states is retarded. Had the lands included in these Spanish grants remained un- der Spanish rule, the minerals would have been reserved for the miners. The subject is one for consideration and action by the California State Miners association when framing amendments to our mining laws.