Revision of the Mining Law (0a08504a-3368-459c-aaa5-e9fd68874513)

THE proposed revision of the mining law as set forth in the Arentz Bill, now before Congress, is centered about the pretty commonly acknowledged f act that the present law is outlawed both by the large mining companies and the United States Land Office. By common agreement, the law of the apex is non-opera¬tive as between adjacent properties in many instances, and this practice is becoming more common. - If this is a fact, there is no escape from the conclusion that the law is antiquated and should be revised to meet modern conditions more equitable. The thing to be considered seriously is in what direction and to what extent the laws should be changed. Before deciding this, it is logical to inquire in what particulars the present law is troublesome or useless. This was all threshed out by the committee of the Bureau of Mines that worked out the proposed bill, but their testimony was not placed before the public, so far as 1 am aware. Most mine managers and engineers connected with producing properties are a unit in agreeing that the law as applied to the underground extension of orebodies, that is, the "law of the apex," as it is called, is the source of more litigation and expense than any other phase of the law, or perhaps than all other phases combined. This being true, it seems that this part of the law should be changed. Another phase which is troublesome and will continue to be so long as there is unpatented mineral land on the Public Domain, is the discovery requirement. The present law requires that a dis¬covery be made before a claim is staked and the courts certainly agree that such must be the case before patent issues.