The Cordova daily times., 1923-03-14
DEPARTMENT GIVES
 VIEWS ON ASSESSMENT WORK
 REQUIREMENTS; ;REVIEWSLAWS

Clarification of a number of ques- tions connected with assessment work and other phases of the mining laws is undertaken by the Depart ment of the Interior in a letter to Mining Supervisor B. D. Stewart in which the relation of the mining laws of 1907, 1912 and 1921 to each other is discussed. The Departments view point is outlined by First Assistant Secretary E. c. Finney.
 The matter was brought to the at tention of the Department by MT. Stewart in submitting several ques- tions formulated by Attorney General John Rustgard.
 The Act of 1907 provides that fail ure to complete assessment work by December 31, shall forfeit the claim whether or not it be relocated by others. The Act of August l, 1912, provides $1O0 worth of work shall be done on every 20 acres of a placer claim leach year, including the year of location" The Act of August "A, 1921, provides that the period within which the work re- quired by Section 2324 R. s. is to be done shall commence July 1.
 List of Questions
 The list of questions submitted by Mr. Stewart is in substance as fol- lows:
 Under the Act of 1912 is a claim forfeited if the work is not com- pleted within the year, or is the Act of 1907 modified so that the claim may be held if work is resumed be- fore the relocation though not com pleted within the year?
 Does the Act of 1921 affect the Act of 1912 so as to change the period within which the work must be done? If it does when must the first work be done under Section l of the Act of 1912? Must it be done within the calendar year in which the claim was located? Must it be done within 12 months of To- cation? Or must it be done before July 1, next after location? In other words, does the Act of 1921 apply to any other work required than that required by Section 2324 Revised Statutes, or does it also apply to the work required by the Act of 1912 though not required by the older sections of the Revised Statutes?
 If the first work required by Sec tion 1 of the Act of 1912 is not done before the time for performing it expires is the claim forfeited or may the locator "resume?"
 Mr. Stewart, at the suggestion of MT. Rustgard. referred the questions to Director H. Foster Bain, of the Bureau of Mines, and asked that they be sumbitted to the U. s. Attorney General for an opinion.
 Reply of Department
 Dr. Bain forwarded the correspond ence to the Department and Assist ant Secretary Finney, under date of February 5, last, gave it's interpreta- tion of the Acts in question as fol- lows in part:
 q do not deem it essential at this time to submit the matter to the De- partment of Justice for an opinion No concrete case is presented and any opinion expressed would be ad- visory only. In general 1t may be said that the question with respect to the due performance of assessment work is one which involves the right of possession between Navigation claimants in the courts having juris- ditcion
 "In substance the questions sub mitted are whether the resumption of work will protect placer claim located under the Alaska placer act of 1912, and whether the act of 1921 changed the assessment period for such placer claims.
 "The Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat, 1243), amended the laws gov erning claims in Alaska and ex- pressly provided that upon failure of the owner of any claim to comply with the provisions of the Act as to the performance of work and inn provements such claim shall become forfeited and open to location by others as if no location of the same had ever been made Under that legislation the courts have held that an owner in default cannot save his claim by the resumption of work prior to a relocation, the statute being in effect self-executing with re- spect to the forfeiture.
 avs Further Modified