Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1917-02-08

location, record thereof shall be made
in the United States land office of the
districta Yes, 1859; no, 49,
ID. Or shall the time allowed for re-
cording be more or less than 80 days
If so, whats Yes, 13; no, 96
Approve Assessment Rate.
20. Shall the annual assessment
work be at the present rate, viz, 800
per 20-acre, i. e., $5 per acrel Yes, l9l t;
no, 6.
81. Shall it be provided that an
equivalent sum of money may be paid
into the United States land office in
lieu of the performance of assessment
workf Yes, s; no, 1914.
%. Or shall it be provided that an
increased sum of money-say $3.50 per
acre-may be paid into the United
States land office in lieu of the per-
formance of assessment workf Yes,
Is; no, 1874.
%. Shall person or association
holding group of contiguous claims be
permitted to do the assessment work
upon one claim and thereby hold the
group, the amount of such work to be
equivalent to So per acre for each claim
of the groupa Yes, 191; no, 16.
"a. Shall person or association do
ing assessment work in any one year to
the value of more than $50 per 1O-acre
claim be given credit for the excess in
succeeding years, providing, however,
that no fraction of $50 shall be con
sidered for this purposeS Of the claim
unit be 40 acres these figures would be
raised to $200) Yes, 4S; no, IT'S.
Insist on Honest Work.
25. Shall there be emphatic pro-
visions to insure the honest performance
of annual assessment works Yes, 100;
no, II.
26. Shall it be provided that in per-
forming assessment work, labor shall
be reckoned at the current rate of wages
for miners in the district7 Or at some
other date; and if so whats Yes, 141;
no, 81.
81. Shall it be required that every
holder of a claim shall file annually a
record of his assessment work, accom-
panied by vouchers, in the land office
of the district7 Yes, 174; no, Al.
2s. Shall proceedings for patent re-
main as now! Yes, 179; no, 81.
20. Shall proceedings for patent re-
main as now with the proviso that only
the exterior boundaries of a group of
claims need be monumenteds Yes, 100;
no, 4S.
30. Shall proceedings for patent re-
main as now with proviso that absence
of records in the land office of conflict
ing locations shall be taken as prima
faeie evidence that none exist, that are
validF Yes, ITO; no, 43.
oppose Extralateral Rights.
81. Article V of the memorandum
adopted by the New York section reads
as follows:
"Subject to the existing extralateral
rights of mining claimants or patentees,
the holder or patentee of mining a'aim
located hereafter to have the exclusive
right of possession and enjoyment of
the surface held by him and of the
minerals under it, bounded by vertical
planes passing through surface bounda
ries of said land, but not the right to
follow any mineral deposit beyond said
planes, and the holders or patentees of
claims heretofore located to have
similar exclusive possession of all the
mineral in said claims that is not cover
ed by any existing extralateral rights. -
The above article abolishes extra
lateral rights insofar as any claims
hereafter to be located are concerned
The extralateral rights of existing
claims may not be taken away, how
ever, wherefore any new location and
grant Oh patent may be made only with
the reservation of such rights. The
rights existing claims having-been thus
expressly preserved the last sentence of
this article confers upon previously
located claims the right to everything
comprised within the vertical projection
downward of their side lines that is not
legally claimed by anyone else, this be-
ing thus an addition to the original ex-
tralateral rights.
The above article has received gen
eral approval, with scarcely any criti-
cism. The following question is there
fore put directly to the membership.
Do you approve article V of the New
York memorandum, or not? Yes, 10;
no, 40.
80. Shall it be provided that final
entry and payment be made for such
claims within seven years after date
of location, exclusive of the time COW
cred by pending adverse claimse Shall
the time allowed for this purpose be
more or less than seven years; if so,
what? Yes, AZ; No. s3.
49, Shall the new law provide for
appeals from decisions of the United
States land office to court of com