Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-01-18

The same character of work is repaired
in other States. but it is not made, in
terms at least, necessary to complete a To-
cation, but rather as we think a condition
to the continuance of the right acquired
by location.
We regard it as entirely immatcrial
whether under State legislation in refer |
ence to discovery work, the performance
thereof be regarded as "A necessary act Of
location or as a condition to the <n':'i"1-
ance of the right after location. Ii sur'
legislation is valid in theOn5 ease IL is il!
the other. In Erhart Us. Board, il3 I. $,
81. the Supreme Cu&it of the United
States recognized the validity of the Col
orado act regarding such discovery work.
We regard that case As sufficient author
ity on the subject. Many cases maintain-
ing the validity of such State legislation
are cited by Barringer and Adams in
their work on the Law Of Mines and Min
ing.
To enable a party to maintain a right to
a mining claim after The right i acquired.
it is necessary that the PARTY continue
substantially to comply, not only with
the laws of Congress-. but with thl valid
laws Of the State and valid rules %,~taI-
li>hed by the miners, in force in tn dis
! trict where the claim is s@ituH;a.: upnn
which such right depends.
Failure to comply with such laws and
" rules works a forfeiture whether tho laws
\ and rules provide for forfeiture for non
= compliance or not, and the mining claim
" becomes subject to location by any quail
> fled locator.
{ Mallett vs.. Uncle Sam, etc. l Nev. is.
Oreamuno VS.. Uncle Sam, etc. Ncv.
2I5.
Barringer Il Adams, 300.
h Counsel for appellants admit that the
e. State Legislature may regulate the mode
S of acquiring and maintaining possession
n of mining claims provided that the legis-
lie lation is not in conflict with the laws of
y the United States, but contend, that as
A the act of Congress gives the locator OF
a mine one year at least after he has made
s. his location to do the required amount OF
n work in order to hold it, an act of the
or Legislature limiting the time is in con
X tlict with the act of Congress; they say;
n "Although under this provision of the
1g act of Congress the Legislature would be
y. authorized, no doubt, to require ~locators
I'd to do more than one hundred dollars
n worth of work annually, but not to limit
ed he time within which it should be done
&C. The contention that although the Legis
is lature may properly require a create
te amount of work than Congress has pre-
ac- scribed, but cannot limit the time il
lat which to do it. does not strike us with an.
as great force of reason. Congress has mad
at the one hundred dollars worth of labO
he the minimum amount to be done, and tn
ng time named is the maximum time for tn
on performance of the work without the risI
he of forfeiture. We think the Legislature
may require a reasonable additional {
at mount of work to be done annually, an
be a reasonable AMOUNT of work to comple1
the location 1l3 l.. S. suprd) or after loc;
ar ton, a reasonable additional amount
the work within a reasonable time, less tina
nual expenditure, as a condition to ii
ork continuance of the right acquired by l
,re- cation of the mine.
cal. The State may not by its legislation di
will pense with the performance of the conc
.em tons imposed by National law, nor /
the lieve the locator from obligations of DC
'un- forming in good faith those acts viii
are declared by it to be essential to t
atcS maintenance and preparation of the
stat tate acquired by location. Within the
pre- limits the State may legislate. No st;
ton. has the right to decrease the amount