The copper era and Morenci leader., 1919-09-12

Answering communications regard ing the statutus of the exemption law recently passed by Congress with re- ference to the number of claims al- lowed under the law, County Recorder l.. N. Callicotte' has received a letter from Congressman Carl Hayden enclos- ing letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, which ex- plains the status of the law, and which should be interesting news to claim holders in Clifton and GreenIee county. Congressman Hayden's letter and the copy of the letter from Com missioned Tallman of the General Lan1 Onice fellows: t3t}
 August 25th, 1913. Mr.. L. N. Callicotte,
 Recorder. Greenlee County. -r
 Clifton. Arizona
 My Dear MT Callicotte:
 I enclose herewith a copy of the Joint Resolution approved August 15, 1919 to suspend the requirement of assessment wok for not more than five mining claims to any onei claim ant for the year 1918. I also enclose a copy of letter that I have received from the Commissioner of the Gen. eral Land office which indicates that there will be much confusion as to how this law will be interpreted I have talked with a number of Congressmen from the West and we will try to have legislation passed which will clarify this act, but in the meantime we will have to make the best of bad sftua- tion.
 Yours Very sincerely.
 CARL HAYDEN.
 August 18th, 1919. Hon. Carl Hayden,
 House of Representatives.
 My dear MT. Hayden:
 I am in receipt by your reference of the 18th instant, of letter from c. W. Rogers, relative to the bill which has passed both Houses of Congress and gone to the President, exempting mining claims from assessment work for the calendar year 1919, but limiting such exemption to not more than five claims. Your correspondent is doubtless familiar with this provision and iq- quires whether or not in case three parties had joinly located a group of fifteen claims, each could claim an exemption of five claims.
 In reply will say that the Land De- partment will not have the decision of this question as Assessment work is a matter between claimants and the meaning and application of the law will have to be construted by the court in case of conflict, hence this Depart ment will issue no instructions or regu lations regarding same. [ may state however, that it is the opinion of this office that the exemption contained in the rroviso to House Joint Resolution 1!G apriiss to claims, and not to ip- dividual owners, wherefore, if any work at all is required on claim, the full S1O0 worth is required It would follow that if it is necessary for the interests of any owner or part owner to be represented by assessment work it would be necessary for the entire claim owners to do the work and the whole thereof. in each and every case where any owner, no matter how small his interests, is the owner or part owner of as. many as five other claims for which an exemption is claimed uu- der the statute. For instance, if A are ce-owners in one claim and A is not interested in any other claim but B is interested an ten other claims upon 5 of which exemption is exercis- ed under the statute n such case the assessment work would be perform ed on the one claim owned by A and E. In answer to the question put by your correspondent, therefore, I do not think that where parties have located a group of fifteen claims joinly they could each claim an exemption of five claims and thereby exempt all of tho m; at the most they could only exempt five claims, and then only in case none of the owners had claimed exemption for any other claims or interest therein.
 Yours very truly, (Signed) Clay Tallman.