The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1916-11-16

eri1an Mining congress at chicago
next week. on another page we pub
lish part of careful article on the
r,ining regulations of various coun-
tries by William E. Colby, dlstin-
enished Californian lawyer deeply
yersed in the complexities of the sub
iect, 1t is a subject that will con-
tinue to vex us until either the pres
eet law isNchanged radically or we
agree to let it alone for fear OF worse.
So far the attempts to introduce re-
medal legislation before congress
have met with disapproval even from
those that insist on the necessity for
s sundry changes For instance, the
chairman at a recent meeting of the
New York section of the Mining and
Metallurgical Society of America,
technical organization that, despite it's
pretentiousness, has done real Service
to the mining public by a propaganda
for the revision of the law, was con-
strained to say that Mr., Fosters
bill "makes the situation, if possible,
worse than under the present laws
a and it is not worth discussing" So
bad are considered the various bills
now before congress for amending the
mining law that w. r. Ingalls,, aided
By other members of the society men
toned, has drafted a number of pro-
visions meant to express the purpose
and desire of a group of mining engi-
neers that has worked hard for sew
reform. 1t is important to note that
the idea of legislating for the APP
pointment of a commission to revise
the whole mining code has been aban-
doned by these gentlemen, who, after
many consultations, have concluded
that while one or two radical altera-
tons are required it is best to change
the existing regulations as little as
possible in order to retain the Ian
s1age of law that has been tested
and interpreted in a multitude of
court decisions. This, it will be noted,
is also view urged by Falcon Joslin,
an Alaskan engineer for whom We
have much respect in a letter pub
goes farther and opposes any tinkering
whatever with the regulations now in
force. Such of our readers as have
taken the trouble to read the various
articles on the subject and to attend
conventions or other meetings at
which the mining law has been dis
cussed will realize that while there is
a preponderance of opinion in favor
Of making changes, more particularly
the abrogation- of the extra lateral
right, nevertheless when it comes to
Gevising a new law the enthusiasm of
reform is dissipated in a dust storm
of inchoate ideas and half baked pro-
rosas For example the protracted
discussion before the New York Sec
tion of the Mining and Metallurgical
Society as printed in it's bulletins
gives a fair measure of the diver
gence of opinion even among a group
of men having much in common, but
If the suggestions made by these en-
gjneers were to be presented to a
similar group of prospectors and
small operators people vitality affect
ed by the law, the New York propos-
ais would be met with howls of dis
approval. For instance, the substitu-
ton of a cash payment in lieu of the
800 worth Of assessment work or the
permission to locate claims without
restriction of number or the locating
of them along the north-south lines
would evoke lively objection; sc
would the idea of making it INSIDE
meanor for anybody to relocate q
claim. Behind these simpler, but inn
rortant matter there looms a numbe!
Of bigger problems; the classification
OF the public lands into mineral anC
non mineral, the right to mine or
private land, the distinction between
surface rights and mining rights, ant
the existence of state laws conflicting
with any congressional legislation. /
the killing of the extra lateral RICH
goes with the abolition of the demand
for a discovery of ore, is the locator
to be allowed only a possessory it'll
without discovery or is he to b.
granted a title in fee before he proves
TIE existence of ore within his claim
If the latter proviso is to become ;
part of the new law then again TIL
western miner will be up in arm
against a reform so prejudicial to tn
prospector or locator without mucl
money. The problem bristles witt
trouble. Such a bill as Senate
Shoots, supported as it appears to b
by many of the mining engineers, be
cause it is simple and drastic, with
out any effort to revise the Who'll
system of land laws, would make con
fusion worse COMPOUNDED. Nor hav
we much confidence in the provision
for new mineral land law as outlin
ed by the gentlemen in New Yorl
because, whether we engineers like
or not, the formulation of laws mus
la done. in the last resort, by lawyers
at least, the codification of the geolo
gists and engineers must be revise
severely by men specially trained 1