The Alaska daily empire., 1916-03-17
WlCKERSHAM IS AGAIN JECkLING-
 HYDElNG ISSUES


 Is Delegate James Wickersham playing both ends against the mid ! dle?" Is he making promises that he win be good" Co representatives Of corporations in Alaska in order to get their support for him as Q regular Republican, and fighting the corpora tions in Congress that he may retain his and.co-poration following2 These arc questions that are being asked in various parts of Alaska.
 That Che Delegate has asked for the support of the regulars" in the Re- pubiican pasty of Alaska Is certain. What he has promised for that sup port Is known only to the Delegate and those to whom promises have been made and those to whom the scope Of Che negotiations have been told by those who know.
 However. 1t is also known that ir- respective of the negotiations, with the regular" Republicans, the Dele gate is sun fighting corporations and their representatives. During the present session of Congress, opposing mining legislation recommended by various mining societies and mining engineers and mining men, he made bitter attack at Q meeting Of the House committee on mining on the copper producers of the country, and the Engineering and Mining Journal of New York. one of the three or four greatest mining papers in the world gave him a severe grilling for his course.
 speaking Of FIssh Pots"
 Under the heading. Speaking of Flesh Pots" the Engineering and Min Ing Journal for February 26, says:
 For many years the men who are most active in the mining industry of the United States have been agitating reform of the archaic mining law of 1872. which everybody knows Go have been prolific in melting htiga ton. and many have suspected it to be Q check on mine development on that account. The greatest evils Of the existing law are its granting Of extralateral rights and its making of discovery a prerequisite to valid loca tion. The law of 1872 had been en- acted but a few years before litiga ton Cnotably the Richmond-Eureka easel arose from the extralateral pro visions. and that kind of litigation has been going on ever since for the sim pie reason that the conception and terms of the law do not fit the condi tions of the occurance or ore depos- It's. About the same thing is true Of the provision respecting discovery. There are many classes of ore depos It's. such as the "deep leads" of Call fornia. the blanket veins of numer ous districts and blind lodes generally that cannot be discovered until costly exploratory work has been prosecut- ed.
 The recognition of these conditions is SO general that mining men Of an classes-prospectors. developers op orators and capitalists-have been ell but unanimous in the demand that these evils of the existing law be abolished. Such dissent os there is may be classified as coming from law yers who are adverse to Q reduction of the opportunities for litigation, from @ few lawyers and other persons who adhere mechanically to the the ory that anyone that finds ore ought to be able to follow it wherever it goes. and from persons who are op- prehenslve that existing titles might be ieopardlzed. To their credit let it be said that the majority Of lawyers and mining experts who have proflted most from the costly litigation that has risen out Of the apex law are ear nestly in favor Of It's cancellation. To the owners of mining property who arc apprehensive. let it be said that no new law may be retroactive, that any alteration of the mining law of the United States can apply only to those lands that have not yet been taken up.
 Besides the extralatoral and dis- covery features. however, there arc numerous other things in the law Of