The Alaska daily empire., 1923-03-05

Clarification of a number of ques- 1 tions connected with assessment work and other phases of the mining 1 laws is undertaken by the Depart- ment of the Interior in 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 Ey First Assistant Secretary E. c. Finney. 1 The matter was brought to the at l tention of the Department by Mir. 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 is be relocated by others. The Act of August 1. 1912. provides $10O worth of work shall be done on every 20 acres of al placer claim leach year, including the year of location" The Act of August 24, 1921, provides that the period within which the work rel quired by Section 2324 R. s. is tol be done shall commence July 1.
 List of Questions I
 The List of questions submitted by Mir Stewart is in substance as fol- lows:
 Under the Act of 1912 is 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 p1sted 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 1 of Rhe Act of 1912? Must 1t be done within the calendar year inI which the claim was located? Must l 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 l Statutes, CT does 1t also apply to the work required by the Act of 1912 i though not required by the older sections of the Revised Statutes?
 If the first work required by Sec 1 ton 1 of the Act of 1912 is not done before the time for performing it expires Is the claim forfeited or may cne locator "resume?"
 Mr. Stewart, at the suggestion of 1 Mr. Rustgard, referred the questions tc Director H. Foster Bain, of the Bureau of Mines, and asked that they i be submitted to the U. $. Attorney General for an opinion. Reply of Department Dr. Bain forwarded the correspond i once to the Department and Assist ! ant Secretary Finney, under date of February ,, last, gave it's interpreta- l ton of the Acts in question as fol- lows In part. 1 'T do not deem It essential at this 1 time to submit the matter to the De partment of Justice for an opinion, 1 No concrete case is presented and any opinion expressed would be ad- visory only. In general it may be l said that the question with respect l to the due performance of assessment work is one which involves the right of possession between litigating claimants in the courts having juris- diction.
 "In substance the questions sub mitted are whether the resumption l of work will protect a 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 (S4 Stat, 1243), amended the Ia ys gov erning labor or improvements upon
 mining claims in Alaska ssanl ex-
 pressly provided that upon failurNof lthe owner of any claim to conply
 with the provisions of the act as to the performance of work and i'm
 provements such claim shall become forfeited and open to location by others as if no location of the same had ever bean made. Under that Legislation the courts have held that : an owner in default cannot save ms claim by the resumption of work f prior to a relocation. the statute l being in effect self-executing with re-
 spect to the forfeiture.
 Laws Further Modified
 "The mining laws were further
 modified and amended in their ap- plication to the Territory of Alaska [ as to placer claims by the act Of :, August 1, 1912 (37 Stat, PAD. That 5 act prescribed that on every placer Lclaim thereafter located in Alaska
 not less than $l00 worth Of labor
 should be performed or improve : ments made during each year, in
 cluding the year of location, for each t and every 20 acres OF excess frac tion thereof.
 - "I have no doubt that the forfei 9 ture provision of the act of 1907 con tinues and applies to those placer claims located after the act of Au