Should Minera1 Indications by Geophysical Prospecting Be Equivalent to Discovery for Location of Mining Claims and to Assessment Work?

THE second session on geophysical prospecting at the February meeting of the Institute was a discussion of the mining law and the bearing of the new method of search on location of claims and assessment work thereon. Allen H. Rogers was chairman of the meeting, which he opened by reviewing the present law and the proposed changes. W. R. Ingalls commented (by letter) on the Arentz bill, as introduced into the House of Representatives in 1921 and the need for revision of the present mining law. L. W. Douglas explained (by letter) the bill that he introduced and which has been passed by the House. SAMUEL S. ARENTZ, Nevada: It is my opinion that if the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers is to sell this proposition to the people in the West, they have to sell it to the lawyers, because, after all, they are heard loudly when it comes to speaking in Congress. One man tells the other, "This thing is a vicious piece of legislation"; it might not be, but they will pass it on if it affects them. If the Institute would impress on the people affected that we need a re-codification of the mining law and that such is necessary along certain lines; that things have changed during the past decade or two, so today instead of doing our prospecting alone through the sinking of a shaft, through a discovery that may be seen, we are now moving on to more modern means of discovery through geophysics, through the churn-drill, through geology, through geological inference, I think we could get somewhere.