Bisbee daily review., 1904-12-14
ANNUAL LABOR AND RELocA-

AhC AaCSNlOu OA ALt Alknl VI q AC cator of claim to profit by his own negligence in failing to perform the tynual labor Cor tomake Improve ments) required by the Federal law is one which has run the g2-2tlet of the courts. The question as it came before the Supreme Court of Utah was: Can the locator of a quartz mining claim, who has allowed his location to lapse by a failure 10 per form the necessary work. make a re- location or new location covering the same ground?" The court de- ct6ed that such right was recognized by the Circuit Court of the Ninth Circuit (Warnack ys. De Witt, II Utah. 324; 40 Pac., POS. Case dis missed by the United States Supreme Court on appeal, for failure to comply with Rule l0) and also by the Land Department. Further, the fact that a ptor locator. after his right has lapsed, may renew it by resuming work, would appear to be a favor or right granted to such prior locator. but to deny him the right to locate
 is to deny him the right given to strangers. The case in the circuit court referred to hs that of Hunt vs. Patchin, 35 Fed, S16, and that of the Land Department was a letter from Acting Commissioner Holcomb to a man in Leadville, Colorado. The case of Hunt vs. Patchin does not ap- pear to apply directly to the question, that being a case wherein several CO., owners were concerned, and arose over an instance where one of a number of partners attempted to re locate for Himself alone, while ex- cluding his copartners. In the in- stance of the Land Commissioner, it was not & litigated case. but merely the opinion of the Commissioner. ex- pressed tn letter. that one of several educators. all of whom are tn de fault. may relocate in his own name, and hold the claim adversely to his former partners.
 The Federal law makes discovery and location of a mineral vein. or de posit. the basis of the title to such property, and subsequently, its de velopmenL. by working and improve ment. as a condition upon which it may be held. (Erhart vs. Boaro. 1I3 US. 52T. 535, 5 Sup Ct. Rep. 560)
 Lndhey on Mines calls attention to another important phase of this ques- tion. which is of particular interest at this time on the eve of a new year. which is that the forfeiture is not complete until a relocation has been made. It is the entry of a new claimant with intent to relocate the property, and not mere lapse of time. that determines the right of the ori. ginal claimant. The right 10 re- sume work before relocation by an other is evidence that the original es- tate is net wholly lost by the failure to do the work (Larkin vs Sierra Burres G. NJ. Co. p Fed, 337 343D
 The Supreme Court of Colorado has said. As between. the locator and the general Government the fail work does not result in forfeiture. In other words. it is not necessary to perform the annual labor. except to protect the rights of the locator against parties seeking to initiate a title 70 the same premises. q To otherwise express our views. it might be said that, after a valid loca- tion, the title thus acquired remains so whether the aI@7nal assessment work Is performed or not, until for feitad or abandoned. (Beals v5. Cone, 27 Colo, 473) For feiture is not complete until some one else has appropriated the property" (McCarthy vs. Speed, II s. D., 362.)
 By location the locator is given by the Federel laws from one to two wears (according to date of making location) within which to perform his assessment work Within this per iod his claim Is valid and no one can deprive him of It. If at the ex- piration of the time lend of the sec ond calendar year after Iocation) he is permitted to relocate he may hold. the claim another period of two years without work. and in this manner, by making a relocation biennially. he coul hold the claim indefinitely with out any work whatever, which Is clearly contrary to the spirR of the law.
 Annual work if performed as re- quired by the Federal statutes tin addition to such further actS as may be required by State or Territorial and local lsws) secu-es the locator in his title as against all others, and if the locator has failed to perform his assmert work his claim Is subject to relocation. which he can only pre- vent by re5uming work before a stranger enters upon he claim for this purpose.
 Unfortunately the Supreme Court of the United States has never passed upon the question. but there is little doubt that the attempt to hold claim indefinitely or for any period longer than that allowed by the statutes by the mere act of relocation would bel declared noncompliance with The law and cbe claim subject 10 relocation by stranger.-Mindng and Scientific Press
 - -