Iditarod pioneer., 1914-01-10
A DISSENTING OPINION
Iditarod. Jan. g., 1914

the matter of his opinion of the nforma- ton which he received from Curtis H. Lind ley
 Your editorial to my mind, is in error as to the statement that MT. Lindley did not i've an opinion. He not only gave an opin- ion, but cites the law upon which he bases his opinion He cites Sec. 2324, U. s. Re Yised Statutes, which provides that 'the lations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or the laws of the state or territory in which the district is situated, governing the location manner of record ing, and the amount of work necessary to held possession of mining claim, subject to the following requirements:
 con each claim located after the 10th day of May, 1872, and until the patent has been ;ssued therefor, not less than one hundred liars worth of labor shall be performed improvements made during each year" Mir Lindley says "the clear inference from he foregoing language of the federal stat ,,te is that the states and territories may Iegis ate on the subject of assessment work, provided that the amount of work re 3ured shall be not less than $l00."
 What law "infers' or clearly implies" is the law. Mir Lindley used the words, clear inference" Then, has not he ex-
 ressed an opinion?
 Your moot question seems to be that congress has stipulated that "the legislature hou.d pass no law interfering with the pri- mary disposal of the soil"
 The organic act also prevents and pro hibits the legislature from interfering with | he laws in force at that time in regard to 'e fish, fur bearing animals, and the laws
 i the United States providing for taxes
 n business and trade; then inserts the | lause that "these provisions sha not op- crate to prevent the legislature from i'm
 osing other and additional taxes or licenses"
 The additional s100 required in assess nlent work cannot be considered "other han tax or license"
 To interpret the law, the whole act must Il anYly. Of course, if ,ater act explicitly
 e&ls the former the later will prevail; ; 5,.t the clause stating mo interference with he primary disposal of the soil' does not reneal the act stating that "the law shal nGt be so construed to prevent the legisla
 Ire from adding additional taxes or licenses.'
 Nearly all of the organic acts governing our former territorial legislatures have con tained the clause that "the legislature shall enact no laws interfering with the primary
 isposal of the soil"
 The organic act governing the Territory Nj ntaEa contained the above clause The la i.lat,re passed law that "alens could not stake mining ground in the territory" An action was brought under this law de cision was rendered by the district court that it was an interference with the pri- mary disposal of the soil, and the matter 2f aliens could only be taken up by the
 nited States. In this case the territorial l, lat.re law prohibited the alien from
 ak:rg, which is the primary step in ac- ring mining grl lund from the govern ent Our legzlature has passed no such law.
 Ibe Montana legislature enacted similar Laws to those which our lagis ature has en- 2cted governing mining claims all of which ,,'ere heli tc be within their power.
 Mir Lin ley states that Sec 2324, U. S Revised Statutes, further prescribes that on Il claims located prior to the 10th day of May 1872 ten dcllar5' worth of labor sha be reformed fer each 100 feet in len ,th along the vein, which was clearly retroac- tive as affecting mining l'cations made un- Ter the mining act of 1866 which did not rescribe the amount of annual labor neces- ary to hold a claim.
 This IS a similar law to the one passed by our Alaska legislature requiring one hun fred dcllars' worth of assessment work on each twenty acres of mining ground after 1914. In view of the retroactive act of congress, and the territorial laws of Mon tana hclding to be valid, I think that the mining laws enacted by the territorial lagis- ature of Alaska will stand W. HB
 Editorial Note-.The Pioneer passes no O. inicn as to the meaning of the language of the organic act of Alaska nor as to what extent the mining laws passed by the Alaska legislature are valid and will be upheld by the courts. The Pioneer sim ply states as a matter of news-fact that lawyers disagree, and that no authority has yet passed upon these questions and that they are still open. And that they will be open until passed upon by the supreme court of the United States
 FOR SALE
 Dry blazed wood, birch and spruce. 16-