Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-11-27
Question Discussed at the Last
Meeting Of the American
Mining Congress.
UNIFORM PRACTICE DESIRED.
The First Person to be Protected u
The Prospcctor Who IL the Van
guard Of the Industry.

n. s. Morrison the author OF Nor
rison's Mining Rights read paper
at the last session Of the American
Mining Congress on amendments adj
yisable to the federal mining law,
which was at once interesting and in
structive. AS the subject is one with
which all mining men should be con-
yersant In all its phases, the follow
ing viii doubtless prove interesting,
MIR. Morrison says:
AS to the matter Of annual labor
and the more debatable item OF apex
rights. Both have become so thor
oughly understood. and have been
crystallzed into shape by so many
decisions, that little or no change
seems advisabe--at least the subject
would breed at once contention. and
extreme positions would be taken.
A revision Of the whole series of acts
might be advisable, bur would involve
so many items Of detail. the subject OF
work In the committee room OF Con-
gress. that mention OF them In this adj
dress will not be made,
But the practical and immediate
need which. in my judgment. would
ity Of mining titles In the regions of
the Rocky mountains Is the repeal OF
the first clause Of Section of the act
OF 1872. Revised Statutes, Section 1924
which allows each state and territory
to regulate the details OF location. or
to the mining district the same right.
where the state or territory fails to
pass any act on the subject, There
are only three Of the details or condi-
tons OF location enumerated In the
act of Congress itself. which are:
|. There must be an actual discov-
cry of mineral on which to base the
location.
.. The location must be distinctly
marked on the ground so that its
boundaries can be readily traced. and
3. Tho record Of the location must
contain the names Of the locators. the
date OF location and such q descrip-
| tlon by reference to natural objects on
permanent monuments, as Will identi-
| ~ the claim
These enumeratons are preceded by
| the clause giving TO the state. territory
or district the right TO regulate all
| other details and as a matter Of
| course the result Is that in every state
| and territory the statutes on this sub
/ ieCt disagree, and title which would
another for the want Of compliance
with some technical and perhaps use
less detail Of location provided for in
the local statute.
A single amendment TO Section 222I
detailing the necessary incidents Of a
location, and not making them need
lessly rigid, and repeating the grant Of
sub legislation to the districts and the
local legislatures, would remedy this
most glaring defect in the present min
| ing law.
A further section should limit the
right Of tunnels to $50 feet on each side
| OF the bore OF the tunnel or at least
| compel them to elect definitely at the
! starting Of the tunnel how many feet
| they will claim on each side OF the
| bore.
Section 1898, which gives to the local
| legislatures the right TO regulate east
! ments, which includes drainage and
| rights OF way, should, in my Judgment,
| be repealed and In Its stead should be
section defining In terms the extent
| OF such eastments.
The known Lode Clause" a placer
| section, 1888, should also be amended. a
| placer location of 100 acres, a half a
mile square. can be staked on a hill.
side known to be scanned with rich
veins, and under a recent decision OF
the National supreme court. in the Eli
| Clipper case. all prospecting is pro-
| hibited within that area. This defeats
the practical benefit of the reservation
| OF the lodes existing within placer
bounds on the other hand the pat.
ent 10 the placer, containing the loose
exception Of all lodes known to exist
dimlnishes the value Of the patent; fo
there Is nothing % record or In tn,
! abstract 10 tell whether or not q know
lode exists, or IS claimed to exist
The entire placer area should be oper
10 the lode prospectOr until actual en-
try In the land office. Up to that tlm
the discovery OF a lode within a place
should be legalized, but II such lod
location be made Il should be compelle,
to adverse and assert lts existence, o
otherwise allow the placer applican
to take his patent unclouded by
vague reservation which impairs Il
value to the holder with no compensa
tory good 20 any other party.
These are the amendments which
consider both important and advisable
Any radical change. such as adontln
a block system, or making all claim
| square with a large acreage and TAX
ing a way the apex rights, do no
consider wise at this day, though
might have been a better plan n orig
/ indlly adopted. The act OF May 10. 1877.
has now been thoroughly analysed an
explained by hundreds OF authorltativ
decisions, and an old statute so explain
"a ana understood Is always bette
than "a new statute on new theory
which is sure 10 suggest as many point
Of doubt and contention as the one
suppants."
After condemning In no unmeasure
terms what Is known az the New Yor
code OF practise, he goes on:
THE tendency OF modern thought
the United States Is toward nationalist
and uniformity. In banking, divorc
Insurance, railroad and commercial la
the EFFORT ls everywhere toward un
formity an dto an act Of Congre,
where Congress has pCGer to cover u
subject That Congress has this pow,
In the matter Of mining is not dispute
, II arises from Its being the orlgini
! proprietor as a feudal lord Of all u
louisiana purchase and the cessior
/ from Mexico.
! When the district rules were fir
! adopted around the camp fire II was u
only government practicable. Thel
were then no railroads TO bind u
country together. The reason for the
, existence has passed and | see no legi
, innate or convincing argument wha
ever to prohibit Congress regulating II
subject OF mining titles N all their d.
tails until patent issues,when, OF cours
the state assumes the sovereignty
the subject matter.
The first persons 10 be protecte
are the pTospectors There Is an arm
| - A. l..