The Cordova daily times., 1920-12-29
FULL TEXT OF MINE DECISION
 OF EXEMPTION

Der 5, 1917, exempting assessment work on mining claims, also applies to Alaska, was in the case of John J. Durkin against A. R. Larson, trus- tee, and others The decision is one that interests every mining man and prospector in Alaska, as there has been much misunderstanding in the matter.
 Owing to the importance of the case and the far-reaching effect, the memorandum opinion of the court, as handed down by Judge Jennings is printed in full and is as follows
 Jennings, Judge:
 Section 2324 R. s. U. S. provides for the doing of annual assessment work to the extent of $100 on each and every mining claim.
 By resolution of congress approved October 5, 1917, said section 2324 was suspended for the years 1917 and 1918.
 Relying upon said resolution, de- fendants did not do the assessment work on the claims in dispute for the said years 1917 and 1918. Plaintiff, conceiving that said resolution did not apply to locators and owners of mining claims in Alaska, peaceably located the claims in dispute on the 2nd day of January, 1919. It is conceded that if the said reso- lution was in force as to claims in Alaska defendants are entitled to a decree, and that if said resolution was not in force as to claims in Alas ka plaintiff is entitled to a decree.
 As sustaining his contention, plain tiff calls attention to the fact that by Joint Resolution approved February 2S, 1919, the former resolution was specifically extended to Alaska, the argument being that congress would not have passed said last mentioned resolution if the resolution of 1917 did of it's own force apply to mining claims in Alaska. l do not think there is a great deal of force in this argument for the reason that legisla- l tive bodies, out of abundance of eau tion, do often pass acts with the ob- ject and purpose simply of setting at rest questions which may be mooted as to the force and effect of prior case is whether or not the resolution of 1917 was of itself of force and eff feet as to mining claims in Alaska, and I do not entertain any doubt that this question should be answered in the affirmative.
 By the act of 1884 (23 Stat L., chapter 53) it was provided "that the general laws of the state of Oregon now in force are hereby declared to be the law of said district so far as the same may be applicable and not in conflict with the provisions of this act or the laws of the United States" Sec. 8 of said act provided:
 That the said District of Alas ka is hereby created land dis l trict, and the United States land office for said district is hereby located at Sitka and the
 laws of the United States relat-
 ing to mining claims and the
 rights incident thereto shall.
 this act, be in full force and
 effect in said district, under the
 administration thereof herein provided for, subject to such regulations as may be made by the secretary of the interior, ap- proved by the president.
 The intention of congress that min ing rights in Alaska should be gov erned by the general laws of the Unit ed States is made manifest again by section 26 of the act of June 6, 1900, (31 Stat. L. 321, chapter 7S6). And in the act approved August 24, 1912 (37 Stat L. 512) congress again pro- vided:
 That the constitution of the
 United States and all laws there
 of which are not locally inap-
 plicable shall have the same
 force and effect within said ter
 ritory as elsewhere in the Unit
 ed States.
 The same logic which would justify the sustaining of plaintiffs contention would warrant the conclusion that while the constitution as 1t formerly existed was in force and effect in Alaska, yet the 18th, 18th and 18th amendments are not in force, nor are the amendments to the bankruptcy