Daily inter mountain., 1900-12-21

Foreign students of our American sys-
tenn of government have always COM
planned that it is difficult to compre-
hend because of its dual nature. In
every place there are two governmen It's.
one state the other federal. and each
sovereign within certain limits. 1t is not
always easy to define these limits.
Questions of great difficulty have often
been raised as to the true boundary be-
tween state and federal authority that
have only been decided by the supreme
court of the United States. The imme-
diate cause of the civil war; indeed, was
difference of opinion as to state rights.
Probably in no other domain of the
law is there a more curious mixture of
local and federal authority than in the
law relating to the mining claims and
mining rights. The mining claimant
finds his rights defined and his duties,
prescribed in part 10y laws of congress,
in part by the laws of the state in which
his claim is situated, and perhaps in part
also by the rules enacted by the miners
of the local mining district To secure
rights guaranteed by laws of congress,
he has access to the federal courts-at
least so long as there is any dispute con-
cerning the nature Of these rights. For
the Interpretation of state laws or min
ers' rules, he has access to the state
courts.
But these are not the only tribunals
having jurisdiction of the mining claim
ant The United States land department.
through which he secures patent to his
claim has set of rules and regulations,
1t also has tribunals that have authority
to hear evidence and determine issues.
and in certain matters the decisions of
these tribunals are final. The decis-
ions of the land department relating to
mineral lands and rights are volumin-
GUS and extensive.
Hence the man who locates a mining
claim upon the public domain finds him.
self subject to three-fold Jurisdiction.
each jurisdiction having a code Of laws
or rules with tribunals to enforce them.
1t is small natter for wonder if the ay-
erage claimant becomes confused as to
just where the authority of one jurisdic-
ton ends and that of another begins.
indeed some questions arise on this score
that federal and state courts have not
been agreed upon, and which will only be
settled when the supreme court of the
United States has passed upon them,
1t Will assist to a clear understanding
of mining law to remember that the laws
lures enact laws pertaining to the loca-
ton of mining claims only within such
narrow limits as the laws of congress
have expressly authorized. In the same
manner, the land department, being a
branch of the executive department of
the government, has authority only to en-
act such rules as may be necessary to
enforce the laws of congress relating to
the disposition of mineral lands.
BY the common law of England, mines
OF precious metals were the perquisites
OF the sovereign. The title remained in
the king. If permission were given to
private parties to work them, a certain
portion of the proceeds We're rendered 10
the king, which was called the royalty"
The United States adopted this policy
OF the common law. and uniformly re-
served mineral lands from its grants Of
lands for other purposes.
When gold was discovered in California
upon the public domain. there were mn
| laws upon the statute books Of the Unit,
ed States whereby tho discovsrers could