Revision of the Mining Law

IT IS to be. read in Western newspapers that Hon. S. S. Arentz who introduced H. R. 7736, 'has repudiated it, that certain mining men in Utah and Nevada say that they will fight it "until hell freezes over." It is to be read in more temperate expressions that "the eminent engineers who drafted the bill exhibited a woeful misunderstanding of Western sentiment and opinion." Furthermore, it is averred that there is no need for revising the mining laws, that we have got along pretty well under the existing laws, etc. Such statements are so surprising in view of, the facts of record that it is hard to believe that the oppon-ents of the bill, who make them, are well informed, or that they represent general opinion. It will be useful therefore to review the record of the case. Our GOOD OLD MINING LAWS We have indeed got on well in our mining industry, but that has not been by virtue; of our good old mining laws. Rather has it been in spite of them. Ever since the Richmond-Eureka case in the '70s there has been litigation arising from them. Early in the '80s the apex law was discarded by common consent in Leadville, and it has been ignored in every district of flat-lying ore deposits ever since. The great mines of the present time are the porphyry copper deposits. At Bingham, Ely, Ray, Chino, Miami, Clifton and Ajo the apex law is simply inapplicable. A law that is inapplicable to the modern conditions of mining may be an old law, but it can not properly be characterized as a "good" law. For such reasons, and many others of weight, there has been a demand for revision of the mining laws; dat-ing ,back at least three decades. President Roosevelt appointed a commission to advise respecting the question, said commission comprising. Dr. James Douglas (chairman), John Hays Hammond, D: M. Barringer, Walter B: Devereux, and William B. Mather. This committee was unanimous on the following points: