The Florence tribune., 1901-07-20
INTEREST TO MINERS. Attorney Kearney, of Clifton, Gives the Law and His Views Re-
 garding Locations.

EDITOR BULLETIN: In obedience to your mandate, Look this up," l sub- init the following:
 The new mining law is mandatory, and substantial compliance with it's provisions is necessasy to perfect valid location.
 A location is not made by taking possession alone, but by working ou the ground, recording, and doing whatever else is required for that pur- pose by the acts of congress aud the local laws and regulations. Belk V. Maegher, l04 U. S., 26 L. Ed. 7S5.
 The act requires e discovery shaft to be sunk in the claim to depth of ut least ten feet from the lowest part of the rim of tie shaft at the surface and deeper if necessary, until there is disclosed in the shaft mineral in place this must be done within 90 days from the time of location. This statute is very simular to those of Colorado and Nevada. In the case of Sissons V. Summers, 55 P. S29, which is from New, the court says: "The validity of the provisions of said statute with ref. erence to discovery work is directly involved in this case. In Colorado and several other states the work as speci- fled in the Nevada statute is required to be performed as prerequisite to the completion of location. The same character of work is required in other states, but it is not made in terms at least, necessary to complete location, but rather, as we think, a condition to the continuance of the right acquired by location. We re- gard it as entirely immaterial whether, under state legislation, in reference to discovery work, the performance ther e. of be regarded as necessary act of location, or as condition to the con- tinuance of the right after location. If such legislation is valid in one case, it is in the other" In Erhart V. Boaro, l13 U. s. 527, the court rec ognized the validity of the Colorado net regarding such discovery work.
 Failure to comply with the law works 8 forfeiture, and the mining claim becomes subject to location by any qualified locator. Mallet V. Min ing Co.,, New. 18S.
 In the case of Lockhart V. Wills, decided by tue supreme court of N. M., reported in the Pacific Reporter, vol. 54 p. 34Q, is very instructive case for the reason that it construed g statue which is almost identical with that of Arizona, and in which the court says, among other things, "when the time expires within which those acts of location were to be per formed under the statute, the land en bracec within the location become open anc subject to location and appropriation by any qualified person."
 "Forfeiturey means a faiure to com ply with the requirements of the min ing laws. This word has been con fused with abandonment" there is clear distinction between them, in, thu former there is no question of intent which is the controlling element in ths latter.
 There is no necessity for iudicia declaration of forfeiture.
 The loss of title becomes absolute and may be asserted by any one ac quiring rights subsequently,, provide the loss has not been repaired by tn original locator himself.
 The title to the claim is not divestet by the failure to perform the acts re quisite to hold it. That failure onl throws the ground open to relocation The divesture of the original titl takes place upon the requirement ( rights by relocator. This relocate may be any one qualified to make lc cation, even the original locator or or of several original locators.
 In contest for possessory rights the burden of proof is on the party WI claims that there has been forfeitur to establish such fact by a fair pr ponderance of the evidence.
 Barringer and Adams on mine, 90 SO6.
 There is nothing in. the Arizona la nor in the decisions that will prevei the original locator from relocatil the same claim when he has forfeit' or abandoned it.
 L. KzARNEY.
 Ten Million New Homes.