The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-01-18

on the proposed revision OF the lnlh-
ing laws in Mining and Scientific
Press, the editor of that paper defends
his position in the following reply:
ION another page we publish a Wig
orous and not altogether courteous
protest from Mr.. Horace " Winchell
against sundry remarks of ours on
the proposed amendment of the min
ing law. We do not resent the unre-
strained vigor of his letter because we
happen to be aware that the matter Is
one that he has much at heart and 1t
is one TO which he has devoted much
time and talent. Mr.. Winchell quotes
Mr.. w. II. Dicksons opinion of the
existing law in order to prove how
ignorant we are. but he knows, as
well as we do, that more than one
lawyer of equal authority could be
quoted against change and in sup
port of. the contention that the pres
ent law is understood, that is, as well
understood as any law dealing with
technical conditions of the greatest
complexity. 1t is probable that any
new law would have to undergo the
baptism of much litigation before It's
intent would be as clear as that Of
the one that has now been interpreted
by multitudinous decisions. The Latin
tag at the end of our learned CORE
spondent's communication pays ex-
cessive compliment to the mind
shrouded in the densest ignorance of
the subject We confess that our
knowledge of the law and its incid-
ence is much less than that of Mr.
Winchell, who has supplemented his
experience as geological witness in
the courts with a careful study of the
whole subject in it's bearing upon the
inequities perpetrated in the course Of
aberrant adjudication, but he is with
out the one qualification that those
less infinitely informed may possess
and that Is a detached view of this
contentious subject Injustice there
has been, of course, but good deal
Of justice also; and we have no ex-
pectation that any law can be passed
. that win be unerringly fair, simply
Pbecause human motives are disre-
garded by the blind lady with the
scales. Our remarks concerning the
gentlemen in New York have given
umbrage, but is it not proper to in
sist that they see only one aspect of a
many sided problem and that others
equally interested, such as prospectors
and mine operators, are in no way
elamorous for the reform that Mr..
Winchell and his friends insist upon?
Thirty years ago their propaganda
would have been timely. At this late
date the public mineral domain is a
vanishing quantity; the government
can not withdraw what 1t has given
a new law would apply successfully
only to new districts, while introduce
ing fresh complications into the own
ership Of claims in the old districts.
Here we are reminded of the weari-
some lawsuit recently concluded in
London, between two Rhodesian min
ing companies, in the course Of which
the extralateral right was involved.
Is IL not a fact that the extralateral
right was introduced into the mining
law Of that country on the advice of
American mining engineers, at least
one of whom has been a member of a
committee to reform the law in the
United States? Leaving this phase of
the subject we may mention that a
leading member of the Mining and
Metallurgical Society has written to
ask how the prospectors opportunity
may be enlarged and how the idle
holding Of claims may be discouraged
or penalized. These are pertinent
queries, The modification of discov-
cry as preliminary to location might
help the prospector, but, as matter
of fact, 1t has been already excused by
tacit consent of the mining commun-
ity in such districts as Leadville and
Tonopah, where outcrops are scarce
The courts protect possession where
the claimant is working in good faith,
but the informal agreement to disre-
gard this requirement of discovery is
no bar to the governments right of
possession in case the law has not
been observed The location of a group
of claims without discovery, the pro-
lection Of possessory rights pending
proof of mineral character, and the
pestponement Of patent until ore has
been found would operate like the
French permits de recherche, or per-
init to explore, previous to selection
of definite and smaller area as the
place of systematic mining. Such
regulation, .f embodied in statutory
form might help the prospeetor, al
though the courts already give him
the benefit of the doubt. on the other
hand. we can suggest no way Of COM
polling work on idle claims, except for
the state and county to pile taxes on
the owners of them. This is done, in
effect, by assessors, who make II
harder for the non resident owner of
than for the resident. The
government can not deprive the non
operative owner Of his patented claim
except by condemnation for public
utility for anything else would be
to the constitutional inhibi-
lion that you shall not deprive a man