The San Francisco call., 1899-04-10
THE MINE LOCATION MESS.
BOOM IN GOLD DREDGING.


of questions comes to every possible
souce of information, and prospectors
are everywhere wondering what they
must do now. There has yet been given
no clear exposition of the situation, and
many mining attorneys have not yet
read the legislative act, and hence are
not ready to express definite opinions.
In a general way the situation is simply
this: The Legislature repealed the State
law of 1897 and accomplished nothing else.
There is now nothing in the California
statutes governing mining locations in
any way. There never was any State
law governing mining locations until the
Seward act of 1897 was passed, requiring
two notices of location of prescribed
nature the abolishing of mining district
recorders, the filing of location notices
with the County Recorder only, and the
doing of $50 worth of work within sixty
days after location upon lode claims and
$40 worth on placer claims. The Federal
law governing mining locations is sim
pie one of rather skeleton form and per-
mits and contemplates supplementary
State and district legislation The
Seward law was the first of such sup
Elementary legislation by this State, and
the miners did not like it. At the recent
session Of the Legislature two bills passed
both houses One simply repealed the
law of 1887 and the other enacted simpler
requirements as to mining locations pre-
scribing but one notice, but retaining
the requirements of assessment work
within sixty days and the filing with the
County Recorder The Governor signed
the repeating act but not the other one.
Hence, thanks to Mr.. Gage, the State has
no location law and the Federal law only
governs. The miners are thus left simply
where they were before 1897. The repeal
ing act went into effect April l.
The situation is thus simple on the face
of it, but the transition backward brings
its troubles to the mining mind. For
instance, MAY mining districts be now
at once organized again and notices nled
with its recorder? Would either the pre-
liminary or second notice used during the
past two years be good for use now, or
must the old forms be obtained? w hat
must be done by man who located
claim a day or a month before Inc fepedi
of the State law, but who had not YET
done his $50 worth OF assessment WOTh!
In other words, Does the repealed law
govern locations begun under It! Such
questions as these VIII arise among min
ers and preserve an open season Tor
doubts for some time.
The opinions of A H. Ricketts,, the
Well-KnOWn authority on mining law and
author OF the mining law OF Nevada,
viii be of interest cOnCeEnlng these
points Concerning the situation ne says:
The effect OF lne repeal Oh the mln-
ing act OF 1897 by the last Legislature Oh
this State is to relegaJe the acquisition
and maintaining of tue to mining claims
10 the provisions of the Federal mining
law ana the local rules, regulations ana
customs OF miners, and II there are none
of the latter wholly TO the United states
Jaw.
1T is not necessary for the validity of
a mining location within the state Oh
California that the same snail be stu
ated within any organized district, Dut
the miners nave now the s unIes.II I, ICIGu
right TO form mining districts ana 1ormu-
late such rules ana regulations as they
may see proper, Whicn are not neon
sistent with the paramount or Federal
mining law-that is TO say, they may now
prescribe the boundaries of the district
and the manner of locating mining
claim whether the same be lode or a
placer claim and the place, manner ana
time of recording location notices ana the
contents of the same, provided thaI eaGh
record contains such description Oh Iile
claim by reference 10 some natural op-
iect or permanent monument as VIII read
lly identify the claim.
The miners OF the district may now
provide for the election Of q rf"
trict recorder, the posting and filing or
notices of location, ana. L--de4 --ic.4 -.----,
regulations or customs the notices OIL 10
cation will be prima facie evidence OF
the facts recited therein in any court in
this State. Miners may Stlll record tnelr
notices with the County Recorder, but
unless the district rules SO proNlae such
notices will not be admissible IN eVl-
dence.
I'm order to make a valid location in
the State of California under the laws
now existing therein, and in the absence
of any local rules, regulations and Gus
TOMS it is sufficient to make discovery
of the lode, post upon the ground a no
tice of location containing the name OF
the locator, the date OF the location, the
name of the claim and such q descrlp-
ton of the claim located by reference 10
some natural object or permanent monu-
ment as will identify the claim and by
placing a monument, which generally
consists of a stake set in a. mound OF
stones at each corner OF the TOUR corners
of the claim and a similar monument at
the center end of the location, ana, Tor
safety, to record the same in the once OF
the County Recorder of the county IN
which the claim is situated. And upon
any claim located since the, repeal OF
the act of 1897 no work need be done on
any location until during the second cal
endar year of the location. -
"Since the repeal of the act of 1897 IL
is not necessary to complete the LOCATION
by doing the amount of work within the
sixty days required under that act nor
the filing of the final or completed no
tice-that is, the second notice of loca-
ton therein provided for. The State law
wholly ceases to operate on the claim.
The law of 1887 did not abolish mining
districts but it made the Office OF district
recorder useless by taking away the legal
ity of district records and making the
county seat the only place for valid rec
ord The practical effect was to generally
disorgani mining districts. Prospectors
grumbIed much at the inconvenience.
Now there will be a general reorganza-
ton of mining districts throughout the
State and location notices will be again
filed with district recorders. The State
law, with it's detailed requirements left
mining districts little latitude for legis-
lation, but now they are again the sole
sources of supplementary regulations.
When the law went into effect district
records were gathered, often with much
trouble. by the County Recorders. In Mr..
Ricketts, opinion such old district records
must remain where they are.
Prospectors viii throw up their hats
chiefly at the escape from the assessment
work required within sixty days Some
such requirement is badly needed when
man may locate forty claims and hold
them for nearly two years without doing
a stroke of work on them, and then relo-
cate them if quick enough, and hold
them for another two years. The effect
of the State law was to vastly lessen the
number of locations made. as a prospector
could hold only as many claims as he
could put $50 worth of work on in two
months. Now one may locate as many
claims as he pleases, and he not only has
until December 81, 1900, to do his 800 worth
of work but any work done this year will
not count on his assessment. With the
present boom in prospecting mineral re-
gions viii be staked out in a lively way