Valdez daily prospector. (Valdez, Alaska) 1905-1918, 1917-12-24
SplR WRITES
'' on ASSESSMENTS
CONTINUED from Page Two.)

positive declaration, that said Section
1924, as amended by the Acts of
March 2, 1907, and August 1. 1912,
applies to Alaska.
the purpose of the joint resolution
of October s. 1917, was to relieve
owners Of unprotected mining claims
of the necessity of performing annual
assessment work required by Section
1924, for the years 1917 and 1918,
to the end that labor might be most
effectively used in raising and pro-
ducing those things needed in the pro-
secution Of the present war with Ger
many, and all such claims in Alaska
clearly fall within the spirit and in
tent 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 defeat 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
mining claims inconsistent with ma
tional legislation on the subject, the
Supreme Court In Butte City Water
Co. vs. Baker, u96 U. s. 119) said:
In / Lindley on Mines, End ed,
Sec. 249, the author says:
Estate statutes In reference to min
ing rights upon the 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 1t
Is of no effect. The right to supple
ment Federal legislation conceded to
the state may not be arbitrarily ex-
ercised; nor has the state the privil-
eye of imposing conditions SO oner-
Gus as to be repugnant to the liberal
spirit of the Congressional laws. On
the other hand, the state may not by
its legislation dispense with the per-
Torrance of the conditions imposed
by the national law, nor relieve the
locator from the obligation Of per-
forming In good faith those acts which
are declared by 1t to be essential to
the maintenance and perpetuatiOn of
the estate acquired by location. With
in these limits the state may legis-
late"
What Is the ground upon which the
validity Of these supplementary regu-
latiOns prescribed by q state Is chal-
lenged? 1t Is insisted that the dispos-
al of the public lands is an act of leg
islative power, and that 1t Is not with
In the competency of q legislature to
delegate to another body the exercise
of its power, that Congress alone has
the right to dispose of the public
lands, and cannot transfer its author
ity to any state legislature or other
body. The authority of Congress over
the public lands Is granted by Section
3, Article w, of the Constitution
which provides that "the Congress
shall have power to dispose of and
make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the Territory or other
property belonging to the United
States" 1t other words, Congress is
the body to which Is given the power
to determine the conditions upon
which the public lands shall be dis
posed of. The nation is an owner, and
has made Congress the principal
agent to dispose of its property. ="
In harmony with the views thus ex-
pressed. am of opinion that the pro-
visions of the Alaska Statute, which
is clearly inconsistent with and repug-
nant to the joint resolution of Octo-
Der s. 1917 and by said resolution
suspended for the years 1917 and
1918, and that the resolution applies
70 all unprotected mining claims in
Alaska, except OIL claims.
"' - Cordially yours,
ALEXANDER r. vAGELSANG.
First Assistant Secretary.