Weekly journal-miner., 1910-10-12
REVISION OF MINE
 LAWS IS ADVOCATED

of the contemplated modification of the general mining laws of the coun- try, as presented in a lengthy com mittee report to the recent session of the American Mining Congress at Los Angeles.
 The chairman of this committee was Will L. Clark, the assistant gen eral manager of the United Verde Copper company at Jerome. The re- port was adopted without a dissent ; ing vote, and was received with very much interest and met with unani- nous approval. From this important manuscript the following excerpts are taken, in the desire for a general re- vision of the mineral land laws:
 con June Is, 1910, your commit tee sent a telegram to Congress ask ing Congress to undertake promptly general revision of the mineral land laws, which, in view of the diff fieult problems presented, should be in cooperation with the mining indus try. The plan adopted for this CO., operation should give all sections op- portunity for public hearing and dis cussion of remedies. It was hoped to secure favorable action by Congress then, but this was impos- sible, as the remaining time was too short. +* We appeal to Congress to undertake promptly a general re- vision of the mineral land laws and particularly now when relief is need ed and which is being urged by all mining communities.
 Under the heading of "Ressons for Such Needed Revision'' is the following:
 "In spite of the good intentions of the makers of the acts of 1866 and 1872, the fact remains that our mineral lands laws are imperfect and obsolete discourage investments and retard development. In spite of the many interpretations of the courts and the numerous volumes that have been written, the millions of dollars that have been spent in litigation, cases are continually arising for ad- indication. New questions of mining law have been raised as to preclude computation.
 ''The great bone of contention has been the extralateral right. It has, however. been found so difficult to make adjustments of the extralateral right wherever extensive and deep mining operations have been prose cuted, that settlements out of court have been the only way of determin- ing such conflicts. Nearly every con solidated group of mining claims is an example of this sort of prudence, but where purchases or consolidation could not be effected, the owners of adjoining mines have executed agree ments and releases whereby vertical, plain boundaries following some com promise line, have been agreed upon as limiting the rights of both par ties. Agreements of this kind have been made by the owners of many of the large mining groups of the West. It has been suggested that this atti- tude of the mining men whose inter ests are most vitally affected, is the final argument against the value and importance of the extralateral right.
 ''In the judgment of your commit tee, the present lws are so loaded down with cumbersome provisions that it is almost out of the ques- ton for the poor claim owner to proceed with an adjudication of ad- verse conflicts through the courts. The final result in every active min ing district is a tangled group of conflicting locations, and involves a class who would invest but are de- tered from uncertainties of title and fear of litigation.
 ''The present law regarding dis eovery is obsolete and needs revis ion.'
 Among the changes desired are the following:
 The question of tunnel rights, and the uncertainties of title arising hereunder.
 The location of an unlimited nun Der of claims by one person.
 The abandonment and relocation bv the same locator.
 Location by proxy.
 The uncertainties of placer loea tions and grouping thereof under tht present laws.
 The conflicts between placer anC lode locations under the present laws The foregoing are only a smaL number of the vexations and uneer