Tombstone epitaph., 1922-03-26
RELOCATION OF MINING CLAIMS

line Mining and Scientific Press of san Francisco Calif. says:
 The supreme of California recently held that the locator of mining claim who has failed perform tn" development work required by federal may re-locae his claim immediately after the expiration of the assessment year and subsequently, obtain title the clam under the relocation. MT. William F.. Colby in the January number of tl, California Law Review points out that an original locator who desired could perletuatc his rights indefinitely ny making brief Journey to his claim July of each year. As the law provides that the holder of claim has the right to exclude adverse claimants after 12 o'clock noon on July l. If he Is engaged in doing development work II wond he possible for him work during the morning of July l. and. after rivals Were Ill the vicinity. to stop and relocate the claim which technically becomes open for location the instant that he dlsconnucS active operations The ruling of the supreme of California makes such procedure legal and valid: this interpretation permits him ab;- don his former title ill favor of himself thereby taking advantage of his own derelction Among the reasons advanced by the California justices for their decision were that may be mentioned. First. the plessly provides that upon failure perform annual labor mining claim shall be open relocation if location of the same had been made They tend that distinction should he made between the original locator and second party. The question arises. however whether immediate relocation after abandon ulteor motive that is. the intention of cvadug lawful assessment work without actually rclinquiShng any right. The court conclusion appears be based partly upon the belief that the main purpose of the statute rc- quring the performance of annual labor is the leaving to quote from the opinion "f visible evidence of hlS clam for the information of other p>pcctor>. to enable them to avoid taking up the ground This certainly open to serious question: PoScctOrS. mine-operatorS and attorneys will agree that the main intent of the requirement for work pro mote the development of the claim hv searching for and opening up by making needed preparations for mining operations: the building of roads the digging of ditches to the claim may be considered as valid work This clearly refutes the statement that the main purpose of annual labor is to inform other prospectors that particular has been located Re garcss. however of what weight this seemingly ques tiOnable Interpretation of the may have had in the reasoning of the California justices the question must be answered: Can clan-owner lawfully abandon one title and initiate new one. to the same property. for the purpose of evadng the statute! We inclined believe that few proSpectorS desire take advantage of technical point of this kind but if the court : ruling is to be upheld. there is nothing prevent locator from continuing to hold his claim year after in mnay states with virtually work. In California a law passed about years ago that prevented a caimOwncr from rc-locatng his claim within period of three years after the original location: Montana the law inhbits relocation under any circumstances Both of these statutes to be open reasonable criticism. The fact that has done his assessment work twice should not ente him to hold claim there after by virtue of repeated reocatons made with intent avoid the performance of annual labor On the other hand the Montana statute is too the strict fOrcement of 1t might easily work hardship the prospector Mr. Colby has proposed that fair law would provide that period of year from the time of the legal abandonment of claim must eapse before 1t can be relocated by the former holder holders This interval would give any other prospecor ample Oppor tnity stake the claim; if second party thought we'll enough of the ground to relocate there should be no obstacle the original claimant making relocation if he desired any time after expiration of the year This is an excellent suggestion not only for the state legislature of California but for those of other western states The decision recently made is subject to review by the supreme of the United States, which must pass upon the point before it is settd finally.
 THE RECORD DEBT