The daily progressive-miner., 1917-12-24

tive declaration, that said section 2a24 as amended by the acts of March 2, 1907. and August 1, 1912, applies to Alaska
 The purpose of the joint resolution of October 5, 1917. was to relieve own CTS of unprotected mining claims of the necessity of performing annual assessment work required by section 2324, for the years 1917 and 1918, to Ithe end that labor might be most ef foctively used in raising and produc- ing those things needed in prosecution of the present war with Germany, and all such claims in Alaska clearly fall within the spirit and intent of the resolution.
 The enforcement of the provisions of section 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 tent isin conflict herewith.
 On the question of the rights of States to enact and enforce local leg islative regulations with respect to mining claims inconsistent with nat ! ional legislation on the subject, the | Supreme Court in Butte City Water Go. V. Baker, Q96 U. s. 119) said:
 Tn 1 Lindley on Mines, 2d ed. sec l 249, the author says:
 State statutes in reference to min ing rights upo nthe public domain must. therefore, be construed in sub- ordination to the laws of Congress as they are more in the nature of regu- lations under these laws than inde pendent legislation.
 State and territorial legislation must. therefore be entirely consistent with the Federal laws, otherwise it Is of no effect. The right to supplement Federal legislation conceded to the state may not be arbitrarily exercised nor has the State the privilege of i'm posing conditions so enormous as to be repugnant to the liberal spirit of the Congressional laws. On the other hand. the State may not by it's legis lation dispense wit htl performance of the conditions impoa ] by the nat ional law. nor relieve tn locator from the obligation of performing in good faith those acts which are declared by it to be essential to the maintenance and perpetuation of the estate acquir ed by location Within these limits the State may legislate."
 What is the ground upon which the validity of these supplementary regulations prescribed by State is challenged? It is insisted that the disposal of the public lands is an act of legislative power, and that it is not within the competency of a leg islature to delegate to another body the exercise of it's power, that Con gress alone has the right to dispose of the public lands, and cannot transfer it's authority to any state legislature CT other body. The authority of Con- gross over the public lands is granted by section 3, article ", of the Consti- tuition which provides that "the Con gross shall have power to dispose Of and make all needful rules and regula- tions respecting the Territory or oth- CT property belonging to the United States" In other words, Congress is the body to which is given the pow CT to determine the conditions upon which the the public lands shall be disposed of. The Nation is an owner and has made Congress the principal agent to dispose of it's property
 In harmony with the views thus ex pressed, I am of opinion that the pro visions of the Alaska Statute, which is clearly inconsistent with and re- pugnant to the joint resolution Of De- tober 5, 1917 and by said resolution suspended for the years 1917 and 1918. and that the resolution applies to all unprotected mining claims in Alas ka, except oil claims.
 Cordially yours,
 Alexander T. Vogelsang,
 First Assistant Secretary.
 trust that this will clear up the | matter to the complete satisfaction z all Alaskans who may have had any | doubt as to the provisions of the law |
 Sincerely
 CHAS. A. SULZER
 Delegate from Alaska