The San Francisco call., 1899-08-14

The news that because of a blunder IN
! the construction of the repeating act OF
March 90 1899, the State mining law OF
1897 stands unrepealed will give the miners
and prospectors the biggest shaking up
they have received in a long time.
That the Legislature did not accom-
phsh the repeal of the act of March u
| 1887, was early suspected or believed by
a number of mining lawyers and mining
men, and several mining attorneys have
advised people to proceed under the State
law in making locations, but the discoV-
cry did not become generally discussed or
known, and miners proceeded according to
old laws and forms all over the State, ana
the announcement of the remarkable sit
uation in The Call of Saturday was prac-
tically the first notice of their trouble the
miners received.
After the adjournment of the Legisla-
ture the miners were much at sea re-
garding the condition of the mining laws,
and the leading authorities appealed to
i'by hundreds of inquirers kept repeating
that the situation was simply as it was
before the State law was passed, mining
locations being governed wholly by the
Federal law and by district regulations,
where such had been made Late in May
! last Attorney General Ford wrote an opin-
! ion on the situation from this standpoint,
which was published in The Call of May
| %, and added the following:
"Note-There appears to be a slight er-
ror in the wording of the repeating act of
! 1899 the effect of which l have not con-
sidered. l have assumed in the foregoing
that the act of 1897 was effectually re-
pealed."
This was the first published intimation
that anything was wrong with the repeal
ing act which few took the trouble to look
up, but it went unheeded and the State
. Hla
sumption that the repeal had been effect
ed that the executive committee or the
California Miners Association few
weeks ago decided to have prepared forms
of location notices according 10 the red
eral law, for which there was much in
quiry by miners, and it was during the
preparation of these forms by Attorney
a. H. Ricketts, last week that the dlScOV-
cry which became effective was made.
After thorough study Mr.. Ricketts, decided
that there was no question about the
State law being still in force, and other
eminent attorneys agreed with him. Three
or four days ago b. H. Benjamin, secre-
tary of the California Miners Associa-
ton, sent notice of this conclusion to va
rious people, and then Ihe CalI mace II
generally known.
AS stated in The Call on Saturday, the
act appears in the statutes as follows:
CHAPTER CXIII-An act to repeal AN act
prescribing the manner of locating mining
claims upon the public domain Of the United
amending defective locations and providing for
the deposit Of district records with County Re
corders, and prescribing the effect TO be given
to recordation OF notices Of location and afh-
daVits,' approved March p, 1897
The people of the State of California, repre-
sented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as
follows:
Section 1-An act to repeal An act prescrib-
ing the manner Of locating mining claims upon
the public domain of the United States record
ing notices OF location thereof, amending de-
fective locations and providing FOR the deposit
of district records with County Recorders and
prescribing the effect TO be gwen to recordation
of notices Of location and atfbiaVlts' approved
March a. 1897, is hereby repealed.
Sec. 2-This act shall take effect Immediately.
The title of the act is all right, but
moments consideration of the construc-
ton of Section l reveals the error. The
trouble can be quickly understood by
omitting the matter in quotation marks
etc., approved March q, 1897 is hereby
repealed" This accomplishes nothing. 1t
Iepeals IAN act to repeal, and there was
no such act to be repealed. II the act
had read: An act entitled An act, etc,
- is hereby repealed the end sought
would have been accomplished.
Secretary of State Curry has ceruhed
to the Mining and Scientific Press that the
act as published in the statutes is a true
copy of the original bill, The legal opln-
effect that as Section l expresses a precise
and clear meaning in saying an act TO
repeal etc. is hereby repeated, court
cannot assume an intent different from
that so expressed, and cannot substitute
the intent expressed IN the 4tIe Tor that
expressed in the act itself. The intent OF
the Legislature is not for judicial IN
quiry. When there is no ambiguity the
error cannot be cured by court, and the
State mining law was never repealed.
Attorney General Ford naturally de-
clines to commit himself too definitely in
advance of official action, but was will
ing to say: The repeal of the law of 1897
is extremely doubtful, and | strongly ad-
wise miners to strictly observe the State
law.
If the State law has been continuously
in effect since March q, 1897, no mining
location made since then otherwise than
in accordance with it is a valid one. If
It is not a valid location legal possession
cannot be maintained, and the claim Is
subject to relocation by any one. Very
to that law since the supposed repeal,
and with claims located less than sixty
days before the attempted repeal put Few
holders properly completed the location
by filing a second notice, an affidaV1t OF
$50 worth of work, ETC.
Hundreds of miners and holders or
claims by bond or purchase will be in sad
predicaments, and there will be a great
amount of trouble and uncertainty Tor
a long time There has been nm more pros Tt,.
wear than ever before. On one day re-
Gently fifty location notices were MED
with the recorder OF Shasta County.
great numbers into every part OF the min
eral regions of Northern California and
sWarmed along the Sierra NeYadaS ana
over the southern districts. The copper
boom has resulted in the location Of a
large number of copper claims from ITres-
no County north through all the north
ern counties. A large number of oil
claims help swell the list. Practically
all these claims located during the past
six months will be without legal prOtec-
ton until the State law is complied with.
AS under the State law $50 worth of work
is required within sixty days, it will be
Impossible for the average holder of a
MN of claims t0 them 9li hv
promptly relocating them, the tax on his
resources being too great With the sup
posed disappearance Of this requirement
many prospectors proceeded to stake out
claims as fast as they could find anything
to locate, having, they assumed, un-
till the end Of the year 1900 to do the 500
worth of assessment work required by
the Federal law. With the return of the
$50 and sixty-day requirement q great
many of these claims will be simply aban-
doned. Some miners are far from claims
/ heu have lncated and some will not learn