The Ketchikan miner., 1908-01-25
THE coRPoRAToR LOCATOR


 During the recent debate in the United States senate over the propos- al to suspend the annual assessments upon unpatented mining claims Tn 1907, Senator Carter of Montana sug- gested that the Teller bill be amend ed so as to exclude corporations from the relief sought, also that the pro- posed relief be limited to one claim for each locator. While this proposed amendment was voted down, the sug- gestion nevertheless reveals the atti- tude of . great many western mining men toward the location rights of coi- porations. While the act of 1872 pro- yides that corporations may locate mineral claims, st that time the mod ern corporation had not been put to such extensive uses as it now under goes and the possibility of corporate abuses was evidently not consemplat- ed. Even if such abuses had been considered, it is not likely that the statute would have caused distinc- ton to be drawn between the individ- ual and the corporate locator.
 The location of mineral claims in extensive groups frequently constitutes an evil, in that single individual or single management is not usually able to give proper attention to large acreage, and the spirit of the law, which contemplates the development of the ground, may be defeated through the exclusion of others from the enjoyment of this privilege. A single prospector, doing his own work upon his holdings, cannot consistently retain more than fifteen or twenty claims, and it is quite probable that the exigencies of a livelihood will make it impossible for him to perform more than a few hundred dollars worth of work per annum upon unpro- ductiye ground. On the other hand, the corporation, composed as it is of several or even large number of in- dividuals and presumably able to em- ploy labor for development, has the advantage over the individual in its ability to assemble and retain large number of claims, and it is this SUD- posed advantage that places the cor poration under the ban of adverse opinion when it fails to properly carry out its obligations to the government. Experience teaches that a corporation is just as neglectful of its annual duty ss the individual, and the manager thereof is just as apt to pad" hi: work and seek the ordinary tech nical loop-holes of escape from the full assessment requirement..
 We perceive two possible reason: for the prejudice against the corporate locator. One lies in its greater re, sourcefulness in a case of contest with relocater, due to its manifold personality and its broader opportun. isics of financing its needs. The other lies in is greater temptation to spec ulate upon its location rights. h the first instance, it may be easier for the corporation to evade the law at the lexpense of the individual who, through local contact with the mineral ground is really .desirous of developing it a: the law intended it should be. In the second instance, the corporation ofter considers it good policy to boast of its large acreage. The trashy class ol stock promotions has given bad odol to prospect corporations in general often without justice, and this fact helps to explain why the corporate holder of large group is sometime: hated by individuals who wish te work part of the group, but are pre- vented from doing so by the persistent efforts of the company to hang on to it's acreage.
 When a corporation holds large group of claims and conscientiously performs its annual labor, it is as much entitled to consideration as the individual, and if it develops mine, it is usually the part of wisdom for it to avoid conflicts by holding ground as a ''buffer" between it and its neighbors. rs.-Mining Record.
 MINING PROGRESS IN SOUTH