OCR Text |
Show TO AID INDUSTRY j Proposed Change in Mineral i Claim Location, of Secre-; Secre-; iary of Interior. ! lECKO EAST TINTIC CASE ' Department Asserts Thai Its v Position Has Not Been Property Given. - n i LocjI mining men should secure a tcopy of the paper presented by Charles G. Yale In behalf of tho socrctary of the .interior, prepared by W. C. Mendcnhall, before tlio California, Minora' association At San Kranclhco, on December 9-1 1, 1012. This paper was entitled "Some 'Pbu.scr, of Public Land Administration, Jr.nd covered the public land question from the administration standpoint in a Jvomplete way. Anwng llio many timely thinners handled was that of the Last , v s'rintic Consolidated case of recent and regretful memory, nnd the following cx-' cx-' fi.crpl from tho pupcr will prove of cspc-. cspc-. irhil inlorot In view of tho extended lo-1 lo-1 wal crltlclein of this decision of tho do- partmcnt: , , , ' L There has been much discussion In tho I iprei'S recontlv and In gatherings like this .1 ni.rlnln If.n.-l l'l mplltltl tlnclSlOnS Of whle' that In the Hast Tlntlc case (40 SaI , 'T1) Is a type, and these discussions I shave revealed u wide misapprehension of Hho tenor and scope of these decisions quote from (ho syllabus or the decision Jin the East Tlntlc case: j iSyllabus of Decision. ? "To coiiFtltylc a valid discovery npon ' Jodi' mining claim for which patent la fyou;, there must be actually and I 'physically exposed within tho limits , thereof a. vein or lodo of mineral-bearing n-oclc In place, possessing In and of Itself "a present or prospective value for mln-ng mln-ng purposes. "The exposure of substantially worthless worth-less deposits on the surface of a lode mining claim: tho finding of mcro sur-. sur-. face indlqatlons of mineral within Its ! 3llmits. the discovery of valuable mln-2'ral mln-2'ral deposits outside the dalm; or deductions de-ductions from established geologic facts irclatlpg to lt; one or all or which mat-) mat-) ttcrs may reasonably give rise to a hope ii- beMcf. however strong it rany -be. that '! ih valuable mineral deposit exists within tho claim, will neither suffice as a dls-, dls-, I Jeovcry thereon nor be entitled to be ac-tceptod ac-tceptod as an equivalent thereof." I ? It has been loosely stated that this nnd other decisions of similar tenor have . constituted a. new construction of tho mining statutes For instance, the Salt I OLake Stock and Mining exchange recently I fpas-scd a resolution in which occurred I thlE phrase; ; "Whereas the department of tho In-! In-! Xcror by these decisions, revolutionary , in their cfTcct. has announced that IL Is I no longer sufficient for tho locator of I u lode mining claim before securing patent to discover mlpcral-bcarlng rock In place, but that such locator must prove ihat oro of commercial vhIuo exists within i the limits of each and every claim before tho department will pass such claims to patent." ; intent of Decision. : r This Is a. clear misstatement of the ! department's attitude and similar mls-: mls-: statements and misconceptions have had I rvido circulation. The department has said that there must be discovery of a i lode possessing "a present or prospective valuo for mining purposes." This Is not holding that there must bo discovery of ore of coriimerclal value, but is clearly In accord with the letter and the spirit j of the statute which require that there 1 must be a discovery of a vein or lode j containing a valuable mineral deposit. I quote verbatim a recent comment of Sec-' Sec-' retary Adams upon some criticisms which 1 have been made upon these recent dc-1 dc-1 clslons , "It has been cry frequently aEscrted that recent decisions of the department require the applicant for a mineral pat-I pat-I ent to show that he has uncovered ore I 1 Of commercial grade and quantities. This I ;ls apparently founded on a mlaconctp-I mlaconctp-I i lion of a stutcmont in the decision In the I t "East Tlntlc case, which requires the dls-1 dls-1 i ovory of a vein or lode possessing a I present or prospective value for mining I nurposee. Obviously, this Is a very dlf-1 dlf-1 1 lerent thing from requiring the exposure 1 of ore in commercial grades and quan-I quan-I pities. All that the decision of the de-I de-I artmcnt requires Is that the vein or I lode on account of which patent Is asked I xho!I be such vein or lode rh either has I a present value for mining purposes, or I Is of such nature as to have a prospec-I prospec-I ive value. In order that It may have a I prospective valuo It Is not required that I ore of commercial qualities and quanll-I quanll-I tics be exposed, but simply that the vein I "be of such nature as to lead to the be-I be-I 'lef that It contains ore worth mining. I Obviously, there is no Justification for I 4saulng a lode patent on a vein that docs I -ot cither have present or "prospective I ,ialue Also, obviously, the decision of I he department is not a strict construc-1 construc-1 tion of the statute, which provides that I 'all vuluablo mineral deposits In lands belonging be-longing to the United States' arc free to exploration and purchase.' That decla-, decla-, ration of tho mining law Is the foundn-, foundn-, tlon on which all mining patents are ls- "UTho officers of tho department of the interior recognize, as havo all students of our mining laws, that these laws are not perfcot, and that they may well bo amended to the great benefit of the mining min-ing Industry. For Instance, the law at prcsont docs not create any rights in supposedlv mineral land except after discovery. dis-covery. Secretary lHsher suggests that tho law ehould bo ho amended as to give tho prospector for a torm of years an exclusive right of possession for prospecting pros-pecting purposes -within a limited area. If discovery were made within the time given, patent should isbuo. Meanwhile, the prospector should be obliged to por-form por-form a reasonable amount of work during dur-ing the life of the permit In order to make evident hie good faith In attempting attempt-ing to find mineral within the limits of his claim. Such a change would mean tho recognition under the federal law of the possessory rights prior to discovery, of which tho federal law now takes no i cognizance. |