White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1911-03-26

cation certificate which shall contain
the following, viz:
First-The name of the lode. f..
Second-The name of the locator.
Third-The date of location.
Fourth-The number of feet in
length claimed on each side of the
center of the discovery shaft.
Fifth-The general course of the
lode as near as may be.
This is fully set forth in the Colo
RADIO statctes Or. S. Col. Sec. 4194.)
As concerns the requirements as to
time of filing, and what shall be con-
tanned in the certificate when filed,
this Colorado statute is fairly specific
and constitutes a w~ell-rounded and
clear instruction for the miner. And
it will be noted that Colorado has
gone even farther than this, and has,
by statute, provided that penalty for
a failure to comply with the terms of
said Sec. 4194: ANY location GER
ti6cate of a lode claim which shall
moi contain the name of the lode. the
name of the locator, the date of the
location, the number of lineal feet
claimed on each side of the discovery
shaft, the general course of the lode,
and such description as shall identify
the claim with reasonable certainty,
shall be void" Or. S. Colo. Sec.
4195.)
From an examination of the lam
guage of Sec. 1924, GU. S. Rev.
Stat.) it will be seen that that sec
ton of the mining laws does not re-
quire a record to be made of the
claim as such. The record, as the
filing of the certificate assumes to be,
is a result of the provisions and re-
quirements of either state statutes or
mining district rules. This has
seemingly always been the condition
of the federal laws, for prior to the
federal mining acts, no federal re-
quirement existed for the r~ecordation
of the certificate. On the enactment
of the various mining acts congress
evidently deemed it advisable to
allow this point to stand open, and,
consequently, ii was left to the min
ing districts and the states Il require
filed records of locations and claims.
The view of the federal courts as
to this is expressed by the fereral
supreme court in Haws VS.. Victoria
Copper Mining Co., C160 U. s., 31S:)
=" there was not, at the
time the copies were left for record,
any mining district recorder; and
that the rule and regulations of what
had been known as the Carbonate
Mining district, in which said claim
al situated, had long prior 70
Dyer's location fallen into disuse,
and were not then. and for a long
time prior thereto had not been, in
force and effect. In such event there
no statutory requirement that
notices should be recordered." GU. S.
Rev. Stat, Cect. 2324.D
However, as by custom and dis
trict rule and statute (other than
federal) such notice or certificate is
usually required now, in almost all
states, to be filed in some public Of
flee las county recorders, mining
district registrars etc. the the safer
and better practice is to deliver such
certificate or notice into the hands of
a proper officer at a proper Office of
record. with the avowed intention
OF having the same a perfect public
record. If this notice be once de-
livered into the hands of the proper
officer at his Office the filling is com
plete, and two things are assured
the claimant: He has given con-
.structive notice to subsequent loca-
tors, alleged or otherwise; and he
has relieved himself of the heavy
burden of proving prior location, or
discovery, by the facts and circum-
stances of the case. Those circum-
stances and facts are shown to have
been, on the date of filing, as narrat-
ed in the public record. CWeese VS..
Barker, 7 Colo, 17S.)
The location certificate shall. of
contain only what is required
and provided for in the statute or
statutes or district rules. In all cases
the federal statute must be regarded
and followed, and added to that, the
locator must heed and follow any and
all further provisions of the state
statute or district rules applying to