The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-11-09
no CHANGE THE Law.
The Proposed Revision of the Mining
Code

Almarin 3. Paul, widely-known
California miner Of almost fifty years
experience, in an article lately pub
/ lished, makes . new suggestion about
change in mining laws, says the Den
yer Mining Reporter. He THINKS tlle
greatest detriment to the mining IN.
dustry is the want Of Development OF
mining claims, and that the present
law encourages a continuation Of sucn
want. He thinks that development
should entitle a man to a patent TO d
mine, and that such development
should consist Of q shaft zoe feet deep
or a tunnel 800 feet long, and that Wheh
such is done the owner should De en-
titled to a patent without paying lot
the land
Perhaps there viii be little difference
of opinion among mining men ABOUT
the fact that want of development is d
great evil, CT that the law might De
changed so that it would encourage
development. Now a. prospector holdS
a half dozen or more claims, on eacn VI
which he is expected to do 500 worm OIL
work each year. AS q, matter OF 1acl,
there are very few cases where tnat
amount Of work is done. y lew Gays
labor, perhaps is expended on edcI'
and it is called worth 500. and conslu-
der such cases there is nothing done
which can be called deVelopment. IL
all the work were put on one clalnl'
it would make a showing and pc N3lu-
able to the country, as wen as more
valuable, in most cases, to the prospect
owner than the scattered work. How
should the law be changed to best en-
courage or compel such development
Our own opinion is that Mr.. Paul S
suggested change would not pc euecO-
i've The present law is radically wrong
in principle, if it be admitted that 1t
should encourage development There
should never be q patent issued 10 q
mining claim. An owner should nave
only q possessory title, and be fuliy
protected in It only SO long as he per
formed q stipulated amount oil work
each year. When he ceased 70 40 that,
it should revert to the government and
be open to location.
Previous to 1872 there was no law
requiring annual assessment work on
mining claims. All We're held under
district and territorial laws and these
seldom required anything more than a
record in the county or district record
er's office. as a result, the whole coun-
try was covered with claims which no
one worked. When the law of 1Ss2 went
into effect these claims were open TO
location, and nunufedS were lOtateu anu
developed into mines. More than half
of the mines of Gilpin county were 10
Gated under this law and developed into
producers. Without such they would
still be idle prospect holes. The result
was seen in the, rapid increase Of the
states production. 1t went at a jump
from $4,000, COG to S5,193.S45 in q year,
very largely as a result of that law.
Now the state. and all the west. is get
ting into the condition Colorado was
in then. The country is being covered
with patented claims, whose owners,
often nonresident, let them lie idle
year after year. In effect, though not
Intentionally, the law forces a dog-in-
the-manger policy. The owner will not
develop or mine on them, nor can any
one else do so. The law is wrong, if
the general and public good, through
stimulation Of mining, is one Of its OBJ
iects