The Alaska daily empire., 1917-12-26

the following letter to Charles A. Alaska:
 Hon. Charles A. Sulzer,
 House of Representatives.
 My Dear Mir Sulzer:
 You have recently requested my opin- ion on the question as to whether Joint Resolution No 12. of the 65th Con- gress. approved october 5. 1917. enti- tied Joint Resolution to suspend the requirements of annual assessment work on mining claims during the years nineteen hundred and seventeen and nineteen hundred and eighteen" ap- plies to the Territory of Alaska
 In that connection you submit two newspaper clippings from which it ap- pears that there is a difference of opin- ion as to whether said resolution is ren- dcred imperative as to certain Alaska mining claims by sections of the act of Congress of April 21. 1915. of the Alaska Legislature.
 This Alaska act is based upon and follows with some amplifica ton the pro- visions of section of the act of Aug ust l. 1912 (37 Stat. 242), which reads
 That no association placer mining claim shall hereafter be located in Alas ka in excess of forty acres. and on every placer mining claim hereafter To- cated in Alaska, and until a patent has been issued thereafter, not less than one hundred dollars worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year, including the year of location, for each and every twenty acres or excess fraction there of
 The mining laws of the United States. which were extended to Alaska first, by the act of May IF, 1884, (2S Stat. 2D. and again by section 26 of the act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat, 321) included said section 2324, of the Re- vised Statutes, referrel to in the joint resolution. These laws were, as to lands in Alaska, amended by the act of March ?. 1907, (35 Stat, 1243), and said act of August 1. 1912.
 By the act of December 1, 1913. (3S Sat- 235), entitled. An Act to amend section twenty three hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to mining claims" it was declared:
 That the provision of section
 twenty three hundred and twenty
 four of the Revised Statutes of the
 United States. which requires that
 on each claim located after the
 tenth day of May, eighteen hun
 dred and seventy two, and until pat
 ent has been issued therefor not
 les than one hundred dollars worth
 of labor shall be performed or inn
 provements made during each year,
 be suspended for the year nine
 teen hundred and thirteen as to
 mining claims situated on Seward
 Peninsula, in the District or Ter
 ritory of Alaska west of longitude
 one hundred and fifty-eight west
 and north of latitude sixty-four,
 so that no mining claim which has
 been regularly located and record
 ed as required by the local laws
 and mining regulations within such
 area so described shall be subject
 to forfeiture for non-p performance
 of the annual assessment for the
 year nineteen hundred and thir-
 teen.
 The latter act was clearly a leg islatve recognition, if not indeed a positive declaration, that said sec ton 2324. as amended by the acts of March 2. 1907. and August l. 1912, applies to Alaska.
 The purpose of the joint resolution of October 5. 1917, was to relieve owners of a1 ioip nla ,f l, necessity of performing annual assess ment work required by section 2324. for the years 1917 and 1918. to the end that labor might be most effectively used in raising and producing those things needed in the prosecution of the present war with Germany and all such claims in Alaska clearly fall with in the spirit and intent of the resolu- ton.
 The enforcement of the provisions of section 3 of the Alaska act of 1915, with respect to placer claims located after August 1. 1912. would tend to de- feat in part the expressed purpose of the joint resolution. and to that extent is in conflict herewith
 On the question of the rights of States to enact and enforce local leg islative regulations with respect to min ing claims inconsistent with national legislation on the subject. the Supreme Court iE Butte City Water Co. V. Ba- ker. G96 U. S. 1l9) said:
 In Lindley on Mines. 2d ed.
 sec. 249, the author says:
 State statutes in reference to mining rights upon the public do- main must. therefore. be construed in subordination to the laws of
 Congress as they are more in the nature of regulation under these laws than independent legislation. state and territorial legislation
 must therefore. be entirely consist ent with the Federal law. otherwise
 it is of no effect. The right to supplement Federal legislation con-
 ceded to the state may not be ar