Amador ledger., 1903-07-03

Ardo, reported in 107 California,
held that under section 1888, C. C. |
P, giving lien to persons who per-
form labor on any mining claim, land
held under an agricultural patent
from the United States, is not sub
ject to lien for the wages OF
laborers employed in working a mine
upon it. Such land is not a mining
claim Within the meaning of section
1888"
Under this construction, land held
under an agricultural title could be
bonded and worked for mining pur-
poses, and the employees would have
no redress under the lien law for
their wages. 1t was evidently for
the purpose of meeting this opinion
that the miners lien was made to
embrace "any real property worked
as mine" In this light the amend
ment made by the last legislature
was unauestionably wise and
righteous one for the protection of
the laborer against INSCRIPTIONS
mining operators. The protection
of the innocent mine owner, how
ever, by posting the notice of non
responsibility On the property still
remains in full force. Section 1881
relating to liens was repealed by the
last legislature, but this has no bear
ing on the matter under discussion.
But section 1888 has been changed
in another particular, and inasmuch
as this seems to be the groundwork
for the above quoted opinion SO dis
astrous, if true, to the development
of our mineral resources, we here
reproduce that portion of the section
so as to present the matter clearly
before our readers:
80. and any person who performs Ia
Dor in any mining claim or claims Tor
in or upon any real property worked
as mine] has lien upon the same
............ for the work or labor done
or materials furnished by each respec-
lively whether done at the instance of
the owner. or his agent: and
every contractor, sub-contractor, arch
tect, builder or other person having
charge of any mining, or of the con-
struction, alteration, addition to, or re-
pair, either in whole or in part, of any
building or other improvement as afore-
said Lor OF such mining claim or claims,
either as lessee or under working
bond or contract thereon, with the
privilege OF purchase or otherwise
shall be held to be the agent OF the
owner for purposes OF this chapter.
The words within brackets were
added by the legislature this year.
This question of subsection to
liens hangs upon the practi-
cal effect of the last bracketed
clause. Does this in effect repeal
section 1892 concerning the posting
of notice of non-responsibility. tits
well settled rule that where two or
more statutes are in conflict. the
one of more recent enactment must
prevail; it annuls all other laws in
conflict Herewith, whether it states
so in express terms or not. But we
cannot see that the added words
make any material difference. The
words cor other person, in the old
section, and still retained in the
present law, seem comprehensive
enough to include all that is con tain
ed in the bracketed clause. The
change may afford room for legal
quibbling. The question ought to be
settled at the earliest moment. As
long as there remains the slightest
doubt on the subject, it will prove a
stumbling block to mineral develop
ment, We do not believe that the
lawmakers had the least idea of
striking down the safeguard of the
owner of mining property afforded
by the posting of the non liability
notice under section 1892, neither
can we believe that the lien law as
it now stands will be interpreted by
the courts to have any such injuri-
GUS and unjust import.
This seems to US to present the true
situation under the law as it now
stands. Mine owners have no cause
for alarm. They need not be back
ward in bonding their properties as
heretofore, if they will merely take
the precaution of posting the usual
notice. The last legislature has, so
far as we cap find, made no change
in the law so inimical to the inter
ests of owners as some of our ex
changes have asserted.
AMADOR COUNTY AT ST. LOUIS