Amador ledger., 1905-06-30
THE MINING LAW.

In accordance with our promise of
several weeks back, we have taken
the trouble to look up the changes
made by the codificatlon of the stat
utes concerning mining corporations
in this state. On CUR first page we
publish in full the codified laws as
amended at the recent session of the
legislature. The duties therein I'M
posed upon mining superintendent
and other officials will be read with
interest. and perhaps some astonish-
ment. In addition to the code sec
tions, we publish the explanatory
note from the law trainers, stating
that there is no new legislation in the
codes as amended. The only substan-
tial change is in the omission of the
proviso limiting the section $50 to
mining companies whose stock is list
ed and publicly offered for sale. and
this limitation was left out because
the same had been declared unconsti-
tutional by the supreme court. Be-
sides leaving out the limiting clause,
the words which we have inclosed
within parentheses have been added.
The other changes are unimportant
and consist merely in the substitution
OF word "must" for "shall" in a
number of places.
The stringent law defining the du-
ties of superintendent and other
officials of mining companies was
passed at time when stock gambling
IN the Comstook shares was IN full
swing. 1t was designed to protect the
public from the abuses in connection
with that system OF fleeing the inno-
cents. The lawmakers in express
words confined the operation of the
most exacting section to such com
panies whose shares were dealt in
on the exchange. 1t was never in
tended to sweep all mining corpora
tIons within its scope. There are more
than hundred unlisted companies
for every listed one. Take Amador
county for example. Only five com
panies figure in the quotations on the
stock board, while there are as many
hundreds organized or doing business
here. We have carefully read the de.
cision of the supreme court, which
is quoGed as declaring the restTlctIo1
OF the section to listed companies as
unconstitutional, and cannot see that
such conclusion is clearly supported.
At any rate so long as that Limitation
remained part of the written law.
mining supeIintendents and Others
were to some extent protected. In
any code revision the intention of the
lawmakers ought to be considered.
And there can be no disputing the
fact that the intent of the Legislators
was to exempt the great mass of min
ing corporations from the onerous
provisions of the section quoted.
But neither the intent of the law max
ing body, nor the majority of the cor
porations involved have been deemed
paramount in this instance. If it be
correct that the limitation proviso
has been mustered out by decree of
the supreme court, it would seem
more in accordance with the letter and
spirit of the statute as originally
passed to have wiped out the main
section also. That would have left
the bulk of mining corporations where
they we're before the higher court had
passed upon the proposition. Instead
of this, the limitation clause only has
been sacrificed, and mining com
panies, listed or unlisted, foreign and
domestic, operating in California, are
subject to be hampered and annoyed
by any dissatisfied OF disgruntIed
stockholder, under the sanction of
these penal provisions. These corpora
tions will no doubt make concerted
effort to have the lrksome provisions
repealed by the next legislature.