The Parker post., 1913-02-08
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WORK.

A reader sends us the following
query: ''If the owner of a claim be-
gins work ON same in the last month
of the year 1912, and continues work
on into 1913, being in undisputed pos
session, is it necessary to do the
$1Q0 assessment work for the year
1922"
This question opens up wide field
for discussion Certain assumptions
must be made in answering it. There
is little doubt that the intent of the
law is that claim owner shall do
the required assessment work each
year, and i'm spirit of fairness
this should be done. However, in
connection with mining land it has
been the policy of the government
to take no notice of what is or is
not done, under possession title, eX-
cept when there is a contest IF
then there are no intervening rights,
that is, if no one has attempted to
jump the claim in 1912, it is probably
unnecessary to do the work for 1912.
in order to hold possession However,
if at the beginning of 1913, another
should jump the claim, ON the
ground that the assessment work for
1912 had not been done, We believe
it would be up to the original locator
to prove that he had resumed work
IN 1912, and had prosecuted it
diligently since that time
We would say, then, that, provid-
ing there is NO contest, the original
locator need not do the work for
1912, but. that, were there con-
test, he might find himself in bad
position in the courts, when the ques-
ton of intent was considered, and
would be in danger of losing the
claim. 1t has been decided i'm a
case similar to the one propounded,
that where, in December of one year,
work was resumed, continued through
the first of the new year and not
completed to the amount of $100,
that party locating on the same
ground in August of the new year,
had title to the claim.
This would seem to conflict with
decisions that even after a lapse of
several years, the old locator may go
on the ground, do 500 worth of work
and legally hold the claim, although
no work was done for the preceding
year, provided, always, that no one
else attempted to locate the ground
i'm the interval.
Yet there is difference. In the
latter case, the equivalent of 800
worth of work was done in the cur
rent year, with no adverseS. In the
former, the assessment was done
neither for the previous year nor for
the current at the time the ground
was located
The only case in which the original
locator can hold the ground under the.
conditions of the query, are that in
1913, before the claim shall be re-
located by another, he do the work
for 1913. The necessity of doing it
for 1912 is then overcome
Applying this point of view to
concrete case, suppose A, the or
iginal owner resumes in December.
1912, and does $25 worth of work be-
fore the end of the year, and con-
tinues on into 1913, doing $75 worth
in 1913. He is now safe for 1912,
provided he chooses to apply this
work. Suppose. however, that he
sees a reasonable chance of getting
so worth more done without inter
ference. He may, then, do S25 worth
in addition, making a total of 1926,
$i00 of which was done in 1913, and
may be applied to 1913, and protect
the claim without finishing the as.
sessment for 1912. If another To-
Gates before the first 800 of work ia
done, the owner would be forced by
circumstances to apply the work on
the iji2 assessment in order to hold
the claim.-Salt Lake Mining Re
view