Weekly journal-miner., 1908-11-18
THE PROsPECToR AND LEGAL
 RESTRICTIONS


 Discussing the mining law, which provides that no mineral location is valid unless discovery has been made, the Engineering and Mining Journal says that this restriction IS an tiquated and conceded to be irrational ky common consent. also that breaches of the law in this respect are connived at by the Department of the Interior. "Otherwisc. it asks, how could claims be allowed upon deep leads, for which the prospector must have some unassailable possessory right before spending the large amount of money to open the channel of auriferous gra vel that has no surface showing To he discovereds' The Journal uses this argument by way of introduction Co the statement hat "thc field agents of the forest service seem to have re- vived this ancient law. which is about as applicable to modern conditions as one of the Blue Laws of Connecticut. " We think an examination of the matter will show that this phase of the mining law has become antiquated' because the Department of the Interior does not possess the facilities for en. forcing n proof of discovery when To- cation filings are made. The govern. nent, as a matter of fact, does not know anything about the matter until patent proceedings are instituted, for location certificates are recorded m. der state laws. On the other hand, the courts do not consider the law "anti. qusted,'' and if the issue is raised by third party, the locator will be re. quired to defend his discovery
 As for the prospector, he is entitled tensively as he pleases, he will not be interfered with by rival prospectors unless he has something worth show ing, be will not spend large sums of money in development unless he is able to prove 10 his own satisfaction that the money is "prudently spent (which is proof enough in the suprem, court), and, lastly, he has the distric, customs to protect him m his inchoat, rights Beyond this, in view of the abuses 10 which pretended locations ara so often put, he should not expect any favors of the public domain. II is easy enough in fact, too easy to get over the difficulty of proving a dis cOvery. If the forest agents seek to restrain citizen from prospecting on . reserve, that raises an entirely differ ent question, which should not be con fused with the possible complaints against the mining statute. We think there is entirely too much sentiment wasted over the legal hardships of tho prospector. Practically the whole do main is his for as little or as much ef fort as prudent man would see fit tC expend.
 An important modern phase of thi' question is commonly overlooked. Thii grows out of the intensive use of th' corporation in the location and ex ploitation of prospects. In such eases the evidence of "prudenee does no usually extend to the stockholders il body, because the exercise of judg ment in determining the nature of [ discovery is, by the very conditions O corporate organization and manage ment, limited to the organizer or or ganizers. The other stockholders hav n right to rely upon the statute, b. virtue of which the mere fact of locs ton is prima facie evidence of discov cry. If the fact of location is not evi dence of discovery. then it were tim that antiquated custom he revived, q that the statutory restriction be abo ished outright, to the end that certif cate of location he relieved from