Bisbee daily review., 1904-06-25
lUdrren nlining District

land Of the many millions of dol lars spent in, mining litigation under this Jaw every dollar has been spent in dispute over the title to some piece of ground of body of ore. The min ing engineer, therefore. who has to conduct the development. not to de termine the ownership. of a mine. is not necessarily concerned in the so- called United States Mining Law"
 Nevertheless. a good many Ameri- can mining engineers in the States and Territories affSicced with the present United States Mining Law have been forced to study its provis- ions and 10 realize their effects; and such observers and victims are earn estly requested to aid the new govern ment commission by communicating their experiences and views An1, outside the limits of that special pro- fession or of the membership of tho Institute. there are many doubtless many of whom this article may reach, prospectors. locators, surveyors. law yers or representatives of mine-owners who are qualified to offer the yalu- able criticisms and suggestions de sired by the commission. trust that all such persons will respond to the invitation above set forth. All communications on the subject should be addressed to Mir Clifford Pinchot. secretary of the Public Lands Commis- sion, Bureau of Forestry, Washington, D. C.
 Apart from minor questions of ad- ministrative detail, which have never concerned myself to such an extent as 10 warrant recommendations or reform on my part, I beg to suggest to the future correspondents of the commission the following topics as chief in importance.
 l. First, of course, comes the burE- in question of the "extra-lateral right, which underlies 99.9 per cent Of the mining litigation in the region sub jected to the curse, from which the rest of the world has been free so long. On this point my opinions are well known and need not be re-statec | The fundamental objection to this ao- normal and now tthank Heaven.) uniuue feature of the United States mineral-land law is. that it vitates the otherwise .'iron-clad potency" to quote the United States Supreme Court) of a United States patent by inserting into that sovereign grant an eternal uncertainty as to the thing granted.
 2. 4 close second in the compeu- tion among the evils of the present law is the system of possessory owner ship and mineral-land surveys. under which a locator can acquire an inde- feasible possessory title without giv- ing any notice to the United States. It ' follows that not a single United iStates land-office knows. and not 'single United States map shows. what T mineral lands the government stiii mas to sell. If anybody but Uncle Sam should offer land for sale. announcing to purchasers that he did not know T whether he owned it or not but that anyone could easily find out by ad- vertising at his own expense for go
 days, what would we think of him as
 a manager of real estate? Is there
 any good reason why the United
 States mineral lands should not be
 surveyed and mapped, like other
 lands, and why locators should not
 initiate their title by due notice 10
 the owner of the land?
 8. Under the same head fall the
 still remaining fragments Of the force once accorded (perhaps necessariiyl
 to the local customs and regulations oi
 miners. As a sample. will name
 only the recognition still accorded to
 mining district" What is a mining
 dirtrict,. The United States statutes
 nowhere define it, and, so. as far as
 I now recall, only one State tWy oming) has ever defined it. Yet know of no place. at least. where. H spite of the legislation of a greai State. directing. mining locations te be recorded in the office of the count, clerk. an alleged mining district'' stii ! survived, and the recorder" thereo still entered in an old ledger notices of mining locations which. SO far as : could see. were Of equal value as proo of possessory titles with those of more