Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1905-01-25

ACllns upon the Dellef that they
were fully authorized, nearly all, If
not all, the states in the mining reg.
ions have passed statutes prescribing
additional regulations in respect to
the location of mining claims, some
having been in force for more than
q score of years.
This court has in many cases re-
cognized the validity of such state leg.
islation. In Belk against Meagher,
Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the
court. declared that "a location is not
made by taking possession alone, but
by working on the ground, recording
and doing whatever else is required
for that purpose by the acts of con-
gress and the local laws and regula-
tions.'"
This is followed with the citation
OF number of other opinions of a
similar tenor, after which the justice
says:
Power Of the States.
What is the ground upon which the
validity of these supplementary regu.
lations prescribed by state is chal-
lenged? It is insisted that the dis
posal Of the public lands is an act of
legislative power, and that it is not
within the competency of a legislature
to delegate to another body the exer-
else OF It's power; that congress alone
has the right to dispose of the pub
lie lands, and cannot transfer its au-
thority to any state legislature or 9TH
er body. The authority of congress
over the public lands is granted by
section article Nv. of the constitu-
ton, which provides that the con-
gress shall have power to dispose Of
and make all needful rules and regu-
lations respecting the territory or 9th.
er property belonging to the United
States In other words, congress is
the body to which is gwen the power
to determine the conditions upon
which the public lands shall be dis.
posed of. The nation Is an owner,
and has made congress the principal
agent to dispose of its property. Is
It inconceivable that congress, having
regard to the interests Of this owner,
shall. after prescribing the main and
substantial conditions of disposal, be-
lieve that those interests will be sub
served II minor and subordinate regu-
lations are intrusted to the inhabi-
tants of the mining district or state in
which the particular lands are stu
ated? While the disposition of these
lands is provided for by COMPRESSION
al legislation, such legislation savors
somewhat of mere rules prescribed
by an owner of property for it's dis
pOsal. It Is not of a legislative char
acter in the highest sense of the term,
and as an owner may delegate to his
principal agent the right to employ
subordinates, giving to them limit
ed discretion, so it would seem that
congress might rightfully intrust to
the local legislature the determination
of minor matters respecting the dis
posal of these lands.
Further, section 1924 distinctly
grants to the miners of each mining
district the power to make regula-
tons, and the validity Of this grant
has been expressly affirmed by this
court"
Conclusion.
Following the citation of opinions
on the point, the justice concludes:
Nov. II congress has power to del
egate to body of miners the making
Of additional regulations respecting
location, it cannot be doubted that it
has equal power to delegate similar
authority to state legislature.
Finally, it must be observed that
this legislation was enacted by con-
gress more than 30 years ago. It has
been acted upon as valid through all
the mining regions of the country.
Property rights have been built up
on the faith of it. To now strike it
down would unsettle countless titles
and work manifold injury to the great
mining interests of the far west.
While, of course, consequences may
not determine a decision, yet in a
doubtful case the court may we'll pause
before thereby it unesttles interests
so many and so vast-interests which
have been built up on the faith not
merely of congressional action, but
also of judicial decisions of many
state courts sustaining it, and of a
frequent recognition of it's validity by
the court. Whatever doubts might ex-
ist If this matter was wholly res in
tegra, we have no hesitation in hold
ing that the question must be consid-
cred as settled by prior adjudications
and cannot now be re-opened.
1.-THE Montana statute, among other
supplementary regulations, provided
that the declaratory statement filed
in the Office of the clerk of the coun-
ty in which the lode or claim is stu
ated must contain the dimensions and
location Of the discovery shaft, or it's
equivalent, sunk upon lode or placer
claims and the location and descrip-
| ton of each corner, with the markings
/ thereon A failure to comply with
these regulations was the ground up
on which the supreme court of Mon
tana held the location invalid. 1t Is
cOntended that these provisions are
too stringent, and conflict with the
| liberal purpose manifested by con-
gress in it's legislation respecting min
ing claims. We do not think that
they are open to this objection. They
certainly do not conflict with the let
ter of any congressional statute; on
the contrary, are rather suggested By
section 1924. 1t may well be that the
state legislature. in it's desire to guard
against false testimony in respect 10
location, deemed 1t important that
full particulars in respect to the dis.
| covery shaft and the corner posts
should be at the very beginning plac
| ed of record. Even il there were nc
danger of false testimony it was not
unreasonable to guard against the res.
ur. ection of incomplete locations
when by subsequent explorations min.
ing claims of great value have been
uncovered.
1--WE see no error in the rulings OF
the supreme court of Montana, and
| its Judgment is affirmed"