The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1922-02-16

proposed reNlSlOnS nave been secured
in Washington through use of ques-
tionnaires and interrogating CORES
pondence generally. both by Repre-
sentative Samuel :. Arentz. member
of the house committee on mines and
mining. and a mining engineer of long
experience, and by the American Min
ing congress
Many Protests.
Mr.. Arentz has received large
number of memorials, resolutions ana
letters from associations and indivIo-
uals interested in the bill, and the
bureau Of mines also possesses scores
of similar manifestations. All these
communications were considered in
detail at a recent meeting attended by
Mr.. Arentz and representatives of the
bureau of Mines the geological survey
and the general land office. The re-
suits obtained by this conference were
then supplemented by returns secured
from the QUESTIONABLE circulated
broadcast throughout the industry by
the American Mining congress, the
whole to form the presentation to be
placed before the house committee on
mines and mining when it turns to
consideration of the bill.
1t is certain that the publicity given
the measures Introduction has achiev-
ed the desired result, namely, to secure
a reflection of popular opinion con-
corning the merits of the proposed re-
visions before they were started on
their advance through legislative
channels.
Majority Favor Present Apex Law.
a majority opinion IS registered
against abolition of extralateral rights
by the new measure, which
would permit all previous locations 10
retain their extralateral rights, giving
them in addition, all the minerals in
Guided within their vertical planes
that are not covered by any existing
lateral rights. A twO-to-One majority
is shown over advocates of the change
in answers from California and Colo |
RADIO. which states report the largest
number of protests. New Mexico and |
Utah showed a slightly larger element |
Of favor for the revision. All other |
states carry out the general trend of !
the opposition.
An Impractical Scheme.
Heavy fire is drawn by the bills [
proposal to make necessary the laying |
,ut of mining claims along the lines
,bicb ,,,,,et ooircida Will, tho limos of
he public survey. 1t is pointed out
that the length of time which has
elapsed since the surveys were made,
giving rise to illegibility of survey
and a number of other mega
i've factors. makes it impossible, in
many cases, to lay out the claims in
,onformance with the public surveys.
To cap the situation, say the critics,
he old surveyors are incorrect in
many instances. 1t is also stated. in
many letters, that necessity of making
IN accurate survey in order to meet
he terms of the proposed revision
would involve expense which individ
ial prospectors working on grub
stakes in many instances. would not
De able to bear.
Veto No Discovery Proposal.
Provisions of the proposed law re-
ating to requirement of discovery
we're objected to in 65 per cent of the
California, New Mexico and
Utah led in opposition to this change.
The pending legislation wjuld provide
hat a claim may be held for five years
without discovery, and that it might
)e held for a further period, not ex-
,eeding five years, by payment of $50
Der acre annually in advance. This,
coupled with the substitution of cash
payment for annual assessment work,
iome critics say. would enable large
with extensive finances to
lcquire claims and hold them indef-
nitely without development work.
This condition. it is said. would oper-
tie to discourage activities of indivd-
lal projectors who depend upon de-
-elopment work for discoveries
Would Kill Prospecting.
Commenting in this connection, Mr.
Arentz declares that in his long ex-
'erience in the mining industry he !