Discussion - Uniform Mining Law for North America Discussion of the paper of T. E. Godson, continued from page 706

R. B. BRinsmade, Ixmiquilpan, Hgo., Mexico (written discussion").—how far ahead of the United States are the self-governing British colonies in their application of economic democracy is well illustrated by Mr. Godson's paper. To prove this, I need quote only two of his assertions, the italics being mine: "lt is a stern fundamental principle that a11 natural resources are the inalienable property of the crown.'' "The right to a claim should only exist as long as it is worked or taxed to insure work. Once depart from that sound maxim, there results improper control of the natural resources of the country, which primarily belong to the people." These assertions formed the basis of my criticism1 of Dr. Raymond's paper in 1913, and they should be inscribed in letters of gold above the entrance to the office of every county recorder in the United States. I venture to assert that the existing United States mineral land laws are essentially unfair to the nation and a hindrance to the legitimate miner, because they fail to embody the above quoted principlca; and this applies both to state laws east of the Mississippi and to federal laws in the West. That these laws favor the forestaller and the monopolist, defraud the government of its fair share of the profits of mineral production, and tend to industrial feudalism must be evident to any competent unbiassed observer. The fact that no serious political movement arose to change them, until the conservation agitation of the last decade, may be largely explained by two salient conditions. First, as stated by President Winchell, "for a long time there was such a vast surplus, or excessive amount of unwanted, undesirable land in the West that the land offices did not scrutinize the claim sought to be located;" second, that the millions of individual farm owners throughout the country could easily be aroused, by the special pleaders hired by the great land speculators and monopolists, to use their vast political power for the suppression of any statesmen striving to incorporate in our semi-feudal land laws any such principles as those quoted from Mr. Godson. While agreeing with Mr. Godson that a freehold or fee-simple title, if coupled with obligatory continuous work, may have the same practical effect as a lease, it seems to be the experience of the most active and