Annual Assessment Work on Mining Claims: Hearings Before the Committee on ...
House of Representatives, sixty-sixth congress, first session. MAHLON If. GARLAND, Chair man, Pennsylvania. House of Representatives, sixty-sixth congress
Overview
Annual Assessment Work on Mining Claims: Hearings Before the Committee on ... is a 1919 historical mining reference by Committee on Mines and Mining, United States, Congress , House, preserved in the Mountain Man Mining research library, focused on placer mining.
This 1919 document, Annual Assessment Work on Mining Claims: Hearings Before the Committee on ..., is preserved in the Mountain Man Mining Library for research and reference. Original source: archive.org.
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often diflicult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parlies, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the plus We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means il can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's hooks while helping authors ami publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull text of this book on I lie web at |http : //books . qooqle . com/|
H
, COMMITTEE ON MINES AND MINING. House of Representatives, sixty-sixth congress, first session. MAHLON If. GARLAND, Chair man, Pennsylvania.
MOSES P. KINKAID, Nebraska. MARION E. RHODES, Missouri. JAMES G. MONAHAN, Wisconsin. LEONARD S. ECHOLS, West Virginia. JOHN M. ROBSION, Kentucky. EDWIN B. BROOKS, Illinois. WILLIAM J. BURKE, Pennsylvania.
OSCAR R. LUHRING, Indiana. OTIS WINGO, Arkansas. MILTON H. WELLING, Utah. PETER J. DOOLING, New York. LUCIAN W. PARISH, Texas. EVERETTE B. HOWARD, Oklahoma.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining, Claims.
Committee on Mines and Mining,
House of Representatives,
Tuesday, July 22, 1919.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Mahlon M. Garland (chairman) presiding.
Thp Chairman. The committee will come to order. Proceed, Mr. Hawley.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM G. HAWLEY, A REPRESENTA- TIVE Iff CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON.
Mr. Hawley. Mr. Chairman, we have asked this hearing on Hotse joint resolution 150, which I ask leave to have inserted as part of the record. This is exactly the same as House joint resolution 57, except with the addition, as I recall, in line 7, page 1, of the words " aggregating such amount/' and on page 2, line 3, change the word " deem" to " construed," and in line 4, pag§ 2, add the words il alter, modify," the purpose being simply to clarify and to make more certain the language. This is in all respects the law that is now in force, and only amends that by extending it to cover the year 1919. The law now in force covers the years 1917 and 1918.
Congress has extended the law to cover Alaska for 1919. That is -already in force. Now, this bill proposes to extend to the rest of the United States tfrat suspension of mining assessment work for the current year.
The joint resolution referred to is as follows:
{H. J. Res. 150, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session.]
JOINT RESOLUTION To suspend the requirements of annual assessment work on mining claims during
the year 1919.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which requires on each mining claim located, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than $100 worth of labor to be performed or improvements aggregating such amount to be made during each year, be, and the same is hereby, suspended during the calendar year 1919: Provided, That every claimant of any such mining claim in order to obtain the benefits of this resolution shall file or cause to be filed in the office where the location notice or certificate is recorded, on or before December 31, 1919, a notice of his desire to hold said mining claim under this resolution: Provided further, That this resolution shall not apply to oil placer locations or claims.
Sec. 2. That this resolution shall not be construed to alter, modify, amend, or repeal the public resolution entitled " Joint resolution to relieve the owners of mining claims who have been mustered into the military or naval service of the United States as officers or enlisted men from performing assessment work during the term of such service," approved July 17, 1917.
4 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
I have borrowed from the Committee on Public Lands the report of the Department of the Interior by Mr. Secretary Lane. I have to return this, but this committee could obtain a copy of this report by request, or I can read it into the record.
The Chairman. Just read it.
Department of the Interior,
Washington, June 11, 1919.
My Dear Mr. Sinnott: I am in receipt of your request for report upon House joint resolution 57, proposing "to suspend the requirements of the annual assessment work on mining claims " during the year 1919.
The legislation proposed in this resolution is similar in effect to joint resolution approved October 15, 1917, suspending the requirements of annual assessment work on mining claims, except placer oil locations, during the years 1917 and 1918, and to joint resolution approved February 28, 1919, extending similar relief in the Territory of Alaska for the years 1917 to 1919, inclusive.
While active hostilities have ceased, the conditions which prompted the enactment of the joint resolution above described largely still exist, and I am of the opinion that the action proposed in House joint resolution 57 is desirable in the public interest, and have to recommend its adoption. Cordially, yours,
Franklin K. Lane, Secretary.
Hon. N. J. Sinnott,
Chairman Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives.
I especially call attention to the Secretary's statement that this legislation is desirable in the public interest. Now, so far as the section of country from which I come is concerned, this is the situation: The young men and others — and older men — who are accustomed to do this work for the people who own th& mining locations have been either taken by the United States into the Army, or they have gone into the industries that were supporting the war, and upon the dose of the war a large number of these young men from Oregon are still held in the service up to this time, and the other men who were accustomed to do this kind of work and were available for that work are still the employment of the industries in which they were engaged at very high wages, and they can not be induced to return to these places where the mining work is to be done to do $100 worth of assessment work.
I was in Oregon and in the mining section this last spring and made inquiry about this in response to a number of inquiries I have received as to the probability of the enactment of legislation to cover the year 1919, and everywhere I was told that it was impossible to secure labor for this year and that many mine locators were in danger of losing their claims unless the suspension could be made for the year. I asked a number of very responsible men in different localities, following the statements made to me by those interested in the mines, as to the labor situation, and without any dissent they all affirmed that it was impossible to obtain labor.
Mr. Kjnkaid. You mean you asked disinterested persons, persons who had no mines ?
Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kjnkaid. Well-informed business men ?
Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir; bankers in the community, for instance, and others who had dealings with these people, and who were of their own general personal knowledge acquainted with the situation.
I think that is the substance of what I had to say. It will do no damage to anyone; it will be a very great accommodation to these
Annual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims. 5
mining locators who have already expended a great deal of money, some of them on their claims, and who have a right and just title to their claims, and, as the Secretary says, it will be legislation in the public interest.
The difficulty that we found was the matter of obtaining labor. If they could obtain labor they would have to pay $12 a day or more,
Srobably, for it, and the amount of assessment work that could be one with the expenditure of $100 would be very small and woudl accomplish no special good to require them to do that; whereas later, when labor is available and explosives are available and materials that they use can be obtained for reasonable prices, a better showing could be made with the expenditure of the $100.
Mr. Rhodes. May I ask a question of the gentleman? This resolution reads, "shall not apply to oil placer locations or claims/ ' To what kind of mining claims would this act specially apply ? '
Mr. Hawley. I think to mineral claims. This is, if 1 may repeat, the continuation of the legislation now in force for the years — that was in force for the years 1917 and 1918, extending it to cover the year 1919, as it has been extended to cover the Territory of Alaska.
Mr. Rhodes. What is the objection to this act not extending or applying to oil placer locations ?
Mr. Hawley. Well, I am not able to answer that question. The committee can probably answer it — the committee which has considered the legislation heretofore. In introducing the resolution I simply followed the language of the existing law.
Mr. Kinkaid. Let me suggest or inquire — I know the members of the committee know all about it — did we not include oil placer claims at one time here by an act, and then pass an act — that is, first included it in claims being excused or exempted or relieved from the requirements of making $100 worth of improvements — and then an amendment was made on the floor, I think, excepting that, just as the law now is ?
Mr. Welling. The exemption never did extend to oil placer claims. Mr. Mondell objected to it and he was responsible for oil placer claims being excluded from the terms of the law. I think this amendment was put in on the floor of the House by Mr. Mondell himself.
Mr. Kinkaid. I think it was passed in the first place.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, and then ne immediately afterwards saw his mistake and introduced a bill to have them exempted, and had a long fight over it and was never able to pass it.
Mr. Welling. That bill never passed ?
Mr. Kinkaid. No, that never passed. I was thinking it was passed.
Mr. Taylor. He made a mistake in cutting out the exemption of oil placer claims, as he found out soon afterwards, but he has never been able to rectify it. Those claims were just as m.uch entitled to exemption as any other at that time.
Mr. Kinkaid. I knew he undertook to correct it, but I have forgotten whether he did it or not.
Mr. Welling. He never accomplished it.
Mr. Kinkaid. Then you are just taking it as it is, leaving things in statu quo ?
Mr. Hawley. Taking that law as it now stands, the law of Congress.
6 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Welling. This is a copy of existing law, absolutely as it was passed in 1917 and 1918.
Mr. Hawley. I think it is almost verbatim. There may be a few words changed, but it don't change the sense at all.
Mr. Kinkaid. Ought we not to consider — you have no objection to including oil placer claims?
Mr. Hawley. That is a matter outside of any interest I have in the matter, or any knowledge. We have only mineral locations in the State of Oregon — the part from which I come.
Mr. Kinkaid. Well, oil claims, of course, would be mineral, and I apprehend they are mineral?
Mr. Hawley. I meant metalliferous metals.
Mr. Kinkaid. But under the broad expression "mineral," oil claims would be included, and that is why they had to be excepted, so as not to be included in the law as it now is. I have no concern about it, except I know there are a great many oil claimants, locators. They have just as hard a time to get along as do the metalliferous miners, and there are so many more entries of that kind now than ever before in our history — we have the greatest impetus to oil development now that we have ever had in the history of the country.
Mr. Rhodes. About how much land in your State have you subject to entry, or that would be affected by this bill ?
Mr. Hawley. Well, as to the total number of square miles that would be affected, I can't give that in total, but it will affect the counties of Marion and Lane.
The Chairman. It will affect mines all over Oregon and wherever there are claims.
Mr. Hawley. Yes, to put it this way, it will affect a wide belt extending from the northeast to the southwest corner of the State, covering tens of thousands of square miles.
Mr. Rhodes. There is a large area of land that would be subject to this law ?
Mr. Hawley. A very large area, yes, and a large number of claims.
The Chairman. Then all of Alaska and all other States, wherever there are mining claims.
Mr. Hawley. Yes, all over the West and a considerable portion of the East.
Mr. Welling. Didn't we pass some special legislation at the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, exempting Alaska claims? Are they included in this ?
Mr. Hawley. Yes, the Secretary said they are exempt.
Mr. Taylor. They are already exempt now, for this year.
Mr. Welling. But that is not under this law ?
Mr. Taylor. No; it is under a separate bill. The act of October 5, 1917.
Mr. Raker. That was before this bill came up. We had a resolution last session, Senate resolution 156.
Mr. Welling. Affecting Alaska claims alone ?
Mr. Raker. No; the Alaska resolution came up and was passed; but 156 did not pass.
Mr. Welling. That is what I remember. We had a special bill, a bill for Alaska.
Mr. Hawley. Yes. If I may call attention to the report of the Secretary, he says, " joint resolution approved February 28, 1919,
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 7
extending similar relief in the Territory of Alaska for the year 1917 to 1919, inclusive."
Mr. Welling. That was a special bill affecting Alaskan interests alone.
Mr. Howard. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this provision that this resolution shall not apply to oil placer locations or claims should be stricken out of the bill. My reason for thinking that is that in the first place $100 worth of labor performed on any kind of an oil
i>roposition does not amount to anything. Men that work on oil eases now get from $11 to $12 a day, simply as tool dressers, and a man can not afford to do very much prospecting or wild-catting in the oil business just at this time, on account of the cost of labor and materials and the scarcity of labor. Then aside from that I should judge that this would also cover claims on those shale oils, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Taylor has spoken of in Colorado, and in other States.
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Welling. Do you know how the department ruled on that, Mr. Taylor?
Mr. Taylor. Yes; the Interior Department holds that oil locations are placer claims. All oil claims are located under the placer mining law.
Mr. Howard. I don't think that we should do anything at this time to rush the fellow who has a places claim on oil shale, because we have not yet developed anything from a scientific standpoint that will enable them, even though they undertake to develop these properties, to produce the oil that can be extracted from those shales at anything like a cost that will enable them to compete with the other crude oils. I believe we could strike that out and give them encouragement to hold their claims and proceed further into an examination of processes by which they can get the expense down, to where they can compete.
Mr. Hawley. So far as I am concerned, that is for the judgment of the committee. I have no knowledge of that particular business.
Mr. Welling. You are only interested in metalliferous mines?
Mr. Hawley. Yes; that is the only kind that I have any information about.
Mr. Howard. Mr. Chairman, if I am in order to do so, I am going to make a motion to strike out that provision.
The Chairman. I think you had better wait until we go into consideration of the bill. We will have to go all over this proposition
Mr. Hawley. I appreciate very much your courtesy, gentlemen.
The Chairman. We have been very glad to hear you. I don't know but what in fairness to you I ought to say that I have here a
Brotest from the Nenana Commercial Club, addressed to Mr. J. L. [cPherson, secretary of the Alaska bureau, Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Raker. They have already gotten their extension for this year.
The Chairman. Who?
Mr. Raker. The Alaska people.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 5
mining locators who have already expended a great deal of money, some of them on their claims, and who have a right and just title to their claims, and, as the Secretary says, it will be legislation in the public interest.
The difficulty that we found was the matter of obtaining labor. If they could obtain labor they would have to pay $12 a day or more,
Srobably, for it, and the amount of assessment work that could be one with the expenditure of $100 would be very small and woudl accomplish no special good to require them to do that; whereas later, when labor is available and explosives are available and materials that they use can be obtained for reasonable prices, a better showing could be made with the expenditure of the $100.
Mr. Rhodes. May I ask a question of the gentleman ? This resolution reads, "shall not apply to oil placer locations or claims." To what kind of mining claims would this act specially apply ? '
Mr. Hawley. I think to mineral claims. This is, if 1 may repeat, the continuation of the legislation now in force for the years — that was in force for the years 1917 and 1918, extending it to cover the year 1919, as it has been extended to cover the Territory of Alaska.
Mr. Rhodes. What is the objection to this act not extending or applying to oil placer locations ?
Mr. Hawley. Well, I am not able to answer that question. The committee can probably answer it — the committee which has considered the legislation heretofore. In introducing the resolution I simply followed the language of the existing law.
Mr. Kinkaid. Let me suggest or inquire — I know the members of the committee know all about it — did we not include oil placer claims at one time here by an act, and then pass an act — that is, first included it in claims being excused or exempted or relieved from the requirements of making $100 worth of improvements — and then an amendment was made on the floor, I think, excepting that, just as the law now is ?
Mr. Welling. The exemption never did extend to oil placer claims. Mr. Mondell objected to it and he was responsible for oil placer claims being excluded from the terms of the law. I think this amendment was put in on the floor of the House by Mr. Mondell himself.
Mr. Kinkaid. I think it was passed in the first place.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, and then ne immediately afterwards saw his mistake and introduced a bill to have them exempted, and had a long fight over it and was never able to pass it.
Mr. Welling. That bill never passed ?
Mr. Kinkaid. No, that never passed. I was thinking it was passed.
Mr. Taylor. He made a mistake in cutting out the exemption of oil placer claims, as he found out soon afterwards, but he has never been able to rectify it. Those claims were just as much entitled to exemption as any other at that time.
Mr. Kinkaid. I knew he undertook to correct it, but I have forgotten whether he did it or not.
Mr. Welling. He never accomplished it.
Mr. Kinkaid. Then you are just taking it as it is, leaving things in statu quo ?
Mr. Hawley. Taking that law as it now stands, the law of Congress.
6 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Welling. This is a copy of existing law, absolutely as it was passed in 1917 and 1918.
Mr. Hawley. I think it is almost verbatim. There may be a few words changed, but it don't change the sense at all.
Mr. Kinkaid. Ought we not to consider — you have no objection to including oil placer claims?
Mr. Hawley. That is a matter outside of any interest I have in the matter, or any knowledge. We have only mineral locations in the State of Oregon — the part from which I come.
Mr. Kinkaid. Well, oil claims, of course, would be mineral, and I apprehend they are mineral?
Mr. Hawley. I meant metalliferous metals.
Mr. Kinkaid. But under the broad expression "mineral," oil claims would be included, and that is why they had to be excepted, so as not to be included in the law as it now is. I have no concern about it, except I know there are a great many oil claimants, locators. They have just as hard a time to get along as do the metalliferous miners, and there are so many more entries of that kind now than ever before in our history — we have the greatest impetus to oil development now that we have ever had in the history of the country.
Mr. Rhodes. About how much land in your State have you subject to entry, or that would be affected by this bill ?
Mr. Hawley. Well, as to the total number of square miles that would be affected, I can't give that in total, but it will affect the counties of Marion and Lane.
The Chairman. It will affect mines all over Oregon and wherever there are claims.
Mr. Hawley. Yes, to put it this way, it will affect a wide belt extending from the northeast to the southwest corner of the State, covering tens of thousands of square miles.
Mr. Rhodes. There is a large area of land that would be subject to this law ?
Mr. Hawley. A very large area, yes, and a large number of claims.
The Chairman. Then all of Alaska and all other States, wherever there are mining claims.
Mr. Hawley. Yes, all over the West and a considerable portion of the East.
Mr. Welling. Didn't we pass some special legislation at the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, exempting Alaska claims? Are they included in this ?
Mr. Hawley. Yes, the Secretary said they are exempt.
Mr. Taylor. They are already exempt now, for this year.
Mr. Welling. But that is not under this law ?
Mr. Taylor. No; it is under a separate bill. The act of October 5, 1917.
Mr. Raker. That was before this bill came up. We had a resolution last session, Senate resolution 156.
Mr. Welling. Affecting Alaska claims alone ?
Mr. Raker. No; the Alaska resolution came up and was passed; but 156 did not pass.
Mr. Welling. That is what I remember. We had a special bill, a bill for Alaska.
Mr. Hawley. Yes. If I may call attention to the report of the Secretary, he says, u joint resolution approved February 28, 1919,
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 7
extending similar relief in the Territory of Alaska for the year 1917 to 1919, inclusive."
Mr. Welling. That was a special bill affecting Alaskan interests alone.
Mr. Howard. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this provision that this resolution shall not apply to oil placer locations or claims should be stricken out of the bill. My reason for thinking that is that in the first place $100 worth of labor performed on any kind of an oil
{>roposition does not amount to anything. Men that work on oil eases now get from $11 to $12 a day, simply as tool dressers, and a man can not afford to do very much prospecting or wild-catting in the oil business just at this time, on account of the cost of labor and materials and the scarcity of labor. Then aside from that I should judge that this would also cover claims on those shale oils, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Taylor has spoken of in Colorado, and in other States.
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Welling. Do you know how the department ruled on that, Mr. Taylor ?
Mr. Taylor. Yes; the Interior Department holds that oil locations are placer claims. All oil claims are located under the placer mining law.
Mr. Howard. I don't think that we should do anything at this time to rush the fellow who has a places claim on oil shale, because we have not yet developed anything from a scientific standpoint that will enable them, even though they undertake to develop these properties, to produce the ofl that can be extracted from those shales at anything like a cost that will enable them to compete with the other crude oik. I believe we could strike that out and give them encouragement to hold their claims and proceed further into an examination of processes by which they can get the expense down, to where they can compete.
Mr. Hawley. So far as I am concerned, that is for the judgment of the committee. I have no knowledge of that particular business.
Mr. Welling. You are only interested in metalliferous mines ?
Mr. Hawley. Yes; that is the only kind that I have any information about.
Mr. Howard. Mr. Chairman, if I am in order to do so, I am going to make a motion to strike out that provision.
The Chairman. I think you had better wait until we go into consideration of the bill. We will have to go all over this proposition
Mr. Hawley. I appreciate very much your courtesy, gentlemen.
The Chairman. We have been very glad to hear you. I don't know but what in fairness to you I ought to say that I have here a
Krotest from the Nenana Commercial Club, addressed to Mr. J. L. [cPherson, secretary of the Alaska bureau, Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Raker. They have already gotten their extension for this year.
The Chairman. Who ?
Mr. Raker. The Alaska people.
8 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
The Chairman. This is a protest [reading]:
N en an a, Alaska, June 12, 1919. Mr. J. L. McPherson,
Secretary Alaska Bureau, Seattle Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: The Nenana Chamber of Commerce unanimously voted to enter a protest against the proposed further extension of exemption from assessment work on mining claims in Alaska.
This exemption has so far put an absolute stop to development up here and since the opening up of our mineral resources is one of the sources of furnishing business for our railroad, you can readily see that the passage of this measure would be a calamity, as it allows the claim owners to hold them until the end of 1921 without doing any work on them.
The mining industry can only be benefited by development of claims, not by leaving then lie fallow for another two j r ears.
As Alaska has no Delegate in Washington at present, we address ourselves to you and ask you to register our protest in the proper place, either to the congressional Committee on Mines and Mining or to the Committee on Territories, or both, and for that purpose am forwarding a copy of this letter to both committees. Yours, very truly,
M. A. Schaepfer, Chairman, Committee on Mines and Mining, Nenana Commercial Club.
Mr. Hawley. Mr. Chairman, isn't he in error in stating it would require no work until the end of 1921 ? This is only to apply to the year 1919.
Mr. Taylor. They wouldn't have to do any work until the 31st of December next year.
Mr. Hawley. 1920, but not 1921.
Mr. Raker. If you exempt his assessment work for this year he will have until midnight on the 31st of December, 1920.
Mr. Taylor. Yes; that is correct. In other words, it would be until the early morning of the 1st of January, 1921, before the owner would have to do any more work, and they haven't done any work now since sometime in 1916.
The act of October, 1917, is as follows:
[Public Resolution — No. 12 — 65th Congress.]
JOINT RESOLUTION To suspend th requirements rf annuo 1 assessment work on mining claims during the years 1917 and 1918.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order that labor may be most effectively used in raising and producing those things needed in the prosecution of the present war with Germany, that the provision of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which requires on each mining claim located, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than $100 worth of labor to be performed or improvements to be made during each year, be, and the same is hereby, suspended during the years 1917 and 1918: Provided, That every claimant of any such mining claim in order to obtain the benefits of this resolution shall file or cause to be filed in the office where the location notice or certificate is recorded on or before December 31, of each of the years 1917 and 1918, a notice of his desire to hold said mining claim under this resolution: Provided further , That this resolution shall not apply to oil placer locations or claims.
This resolution shall not be deemed to amend or repeal the public resolution entitled " Joint resolution to relieve the owners of mining claims who have been mustered into the military or naval service of the United States as officers or enlisted men from performing assessment work during the term of such sendee, " approved July 17, 1917.
Approved, October 5, 1917.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Ciaims. 9
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWABD T. TAYLOR, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO.
Mr. Taylor. If you are through, Mr. Hawley, I just want to say a few words.
Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, those of you gentlemen who do not live in the metalliferous mining portions of the United States may not know that since 1872 we have had on the statute books of this country what is known as an annual assessment law. It is a law that requires people who locate mining claims to do $100 worth of work each year on those mining claims in order to, hold their possessory right to them, to hold their incipient title.
The reason that that Taw was enacted in the first place was because the mining law put no limitation on the number of mining claims that any man could locate, and it was thought advisable to make him do a reasonable amount of work on each mining claim each year in order to show his good faith and not allow any man to monopolize the whole country for speculation without doing any work. That was the original object of the law, and it has worked fairly well during all these years.
It is true, as these other western gentlemen will tell you, that the ordinary annual assessment work very seldom produces a mine; at the same time it does aid in the development of the country and occasionally discovers a mine.
In 1893, during the panic, and I think 1894, Congress passed a suspension law. The first two years of this war they did not suspend the annual assessment law, but in 1917 I was the author of the bill, I think, myself, as a member of this committee, which was passed, and we exempted annual assessment work for the year 1917. Then we extended it for the year 1918. At that time Secretary Lane said, as I recollect it, that he was perfectly willing to grant this exemption during the war, but, at the same time, he had some doubt about the policy or the wisdom of it, and that when the war was over he felt that it should not be extended any further. I may say that Mr. Tallman, Commissioner of the General Land Office now, who is thoroughly well posted on all mining matters, came here from Nevada and used to live in Colorado, I am confident, personally % feels that this bill is unwise at this time, notwithstanding the Secretary has made a rather perfunctory report in favor of it.
Now, I am not at all headstrong about this matter or at all stubborn or disposed to fight the bill bitterly. There are two sides to it. If you are going to pass a bill at all, as the gentleman here (Mr. Howard) says, you ought to include the oil-mining claims just as well as the others. There is no reason why you should exempt the others and not exempt them. Tyere are a great many of those in my State and in my home county, and I think they should be included.
The other day, when this bill first came up, I sent a telegram to my district. About 17 of the 23 counties in my district are largely mining; counties, and I sent this telegram to the leading newspaper editor in each one of some 8 or 10 of those counties — and I may say I did that without any regard to politics; some of the leading papers
10 Annual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims.
of my district are Republican and some of them are Democratic. This is the telegram that I sent on the 15th day of July:
Washington, July 15, 1919. Kindly wire me, my expense, what is general sentiment of your county upon the advisability of suspending annual assessment work upon mining claims for this year. Is it best for the community and the mining industry that the work be done or not done? The bill is now under consideration, and I want to reflect the welfare of people of the mining communities if I can learn what their concerted sentiment is.
Edward T. Taylor.
(Copies to editors Herald-Democrat, Leadville; Charles Dailey, Aspen; Charles Coursen, Red Cliff; George R. Painter, Telluride; William Rathmel, Ouray; Rod 8. Day, Durango; E. A. Hillman, Silverton; Claude H. Smith, Breckenridge, all in the State of Colorado.)
Now, I will say the sentiment is divided among them, but I will just read you some of these answering telegrams to give you an idea. The first one is from Silverton. That is in San Juan County. It is entirely a mining county. There is scarcely an acre of agricultural land in that county; it is purely a mining county:
Silverton, Colo., July 16, 1919. Edward T. Taylor,
Washington, D. C.
Sentiment seems to be that assessment work should be done.
E. A. Hillman.
The next one is from Ouray County, another mining and stock
county, and is as follows:
Ouray, Colo., July 16, 1919. Edward T. Taylor, M. C,
Washington, D. C.
The Ouray Commercial Club recommends that there be no suspension of assessment work, except for the men yet in the United States Service.
Rathmell.
This is from Breckinridge, Summit County, another mining and
stock county:
Breckenridge, Colo., July 17, 1919. Edward T. Taylor, M. C,
Washington, D. C.
Sentiment here 5 to 1 assessments mining claims should be put back prewar basis; encourage development.
Summit County Journal.
Here is one from Leadville, one of the greatest mining camps in
the world:
Leadville, Colo., July 11, 1919. Edward T. Taylor, M. C,
Washington, D. C.
Consensus of opinion among mining men and prospectors is that assessment work should no longer be suspended, now that war is over and men available. Belief general that continued suspension serves no good purpose and is detriment to development and prospecting.
Henry C. Butler.
Here is a warm one right off the bat from Durango, a large and
influential county:
Durango, Colo., July 16, 1919. Hon. Edward T. Taylor,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C:
Progressive and ambitious prospectors in hills. Legitimate mining here is not asking any leniency. Find those favorable to suspending annual work lazy and indifferent. We are prosperous, money plentiful, and work should be done. Protect those in service, and restore development.
Rod S. Day.
r
,wmt to,
"l:<i hold
hi.rity to ..: law.
. I ln'HpTP,
- n Federal
. probably
i nave a good
i lie sump as
-hates — good in spend any nt anywhere
! mention out
1 prosperous
i laiior is high
'h! it don't cost
"I to pay a day
matter at longth.
place, I think you
:-l out any bill, you
' cn be exempt, and
1 don't think he
lliree. I think that
ii'llfnv: you will protect
"I you will make these
; Mr. Bowden mentions,
'ul let somebody else go
u development in the West
silver, as well as the other
I iive dropped off frightfully,
id we do need encouragement,
not we will get any encour-
.i-lit on that point I think you i'l ly nearly conclusive statement, llie production or will this asscss- . . r u a
12 Annual Assessment Wobk 02* Mining Claims.
price of all supplies entering into the work. Few such claims are owned by mining companies, as the corporations secure patent as soon as requirements can be met. The suspension of the annual assessment work for this year will help those who find leads and make new mines possible.
Charles Dailey.
Here is also a letter from Telluride opposing this exemption bill, as
follows;
Liberty Bell Gold Mining Co.,
Telluride, Colo., July 24, 1919. Hon. Edward T. Taylor, M. C,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: The American Mining Congress has asked me to send to you an expression of my opinion on the desirability of suspending the requirement of annual labor on possessory mining claims on the public domain for the current year; in extension of the war-time practice. '
In the mining-congress letter on the subject, it is suggested that the requirement to perform labor on their claims may be a great hardship to returning soldiers. I believe that everything possible should be done in favor of these men, and I am quite in favor of giving them tne benefit of special exemption from assessment work for the current year. The mining-congress letter then goes on to note the hardship to claim owners generally, in doing assessment work, by reason of the very high cost of labor and materials. There can be no question that both labor and materials are very high priced, but I see no reason why there should be any favored class to be exempt from current burdens, and 1 believe that claim owners in general should not be exempted. Such exemption would have the effect of curtailing greatly the activity throughout the mining areas of the West, just at a time when the industry is at ebb. It seems that it must be against the best interest of the industry.
With best wishes, I remain Yours, respectfully,
Charles A. Chase.
That is the sentiment I have gotten from those various mining districts.
Now this is a thought that I want to put before you : Mr. Bawden speaks there of one party holding 80 claims. Now I don't object to a poor man having a claim, or two or three or even five, exempted, and that is fully as many as any one poor man can handle. He can't indulge in the luxury — a prospector or a laboring man or an ordinary business man can't usually afford to do $100 worth of dead work each year on more than two or three claims. It is these big fellows, the ' f claim hogs," that I am after, the fellows that go out and locate the whole country, and have been doing nothing on them now for three years and are holding hundreds or large groups of claims without ever doing a dollar's worth of work. You can't ever get any mining development done that way. Now what I am talking about — I regret to be compelled to say it — but the mining camps are most of them at a very low ebb at this time, and if we don't spend any money in them; if we don't keep up any development in them; and if Congress lets everybody escape every year for nothing, we never will have any more mines. You can bear this in mind, that we haven't had any big mining strikes, or big mining developments anywhere when there is no assessment work going on, and it is just as that Alaska letter says, if there is any place on God's green earth where they would have a right to ask for a suspension it is Alaska. Nearly everybody has left Alaska, and conditions are awful up there, yet they can't have any development by suspending all wort, especially where the claims are largely owned by nonresidents in large groups and by wealthy men in New York and other cities.
Mr. Rhodes. Is there no limit under existing law as to the number of claims a man may hold ?
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 13
Mr. Taylor. No; you can go and locate 10,000, if you want to, and if you can inveigle Congress into suspending the annual assessment law and letting you hold them for nothmg, you could hold them forever.
Mr. Kinkaid. I don't know whether the States have authority to make any greater requirements than the Federal law.
Mr. Taylor. The States can't interfere with the Federal law.
Mr. Kinkaid. But they can make a greater requirement, I believe, than the Federal law, but not a less.
Mr. Taylor. Well, be that as it may; I know this is a Federal matter and the Federal law controls.
Now, as I say, there are two sides to this question. It is probably a rather unpopular thing for me to object to this bill, as I have a gooa many constituents who would like to escape the law just the same as you gentlemen have, and the rest of the Members from all over the West. We all represent some poor people, as well as some distinguished gentlemen who live in other cities and other States — good fellows — who have groups of claims and don't want to spend any money on them, but we don't get any mining development anywhere in that way. You take the mining districts that are represented here by these telegrams, and a dozen more that I could mention out there— Cripple Creek and others — and also in the States represented by you gentlemen — these mining camps have not been prosperous during the past two or three years, and it is true that labor is higt and everything is high, but if it costs $12 a day to do the work, it will not require so many days to do $100 worth, and it don't cost any more money for the labor than if they only had to pay $3 a day for it.
But be that as it may, I am not going to argue the matter at length. There are two things you ought to do. In the first place, I think you ought to kill the bill. But if you decide to report out any bill, you ought to at least limit the number of claims that can be exempt, and don't let any one man exempt more than five. I don't think he should be allowed to exempt more than two or three. I think that would be fair, and you will then relieve the poor fellow; you will protect him and you will also get some development, and you will make these fellows that hold 80 claims, like this one party Mr. Bowden mentions, either work them some or surrender them and let somebody else go in and take them, and maybe somebody else will do something with them, and maybe we will get some minijig development in the West during this year.
If you will look at the output of gold and silver, as well as the other precious metals, you will find that they have dropped off frightfully, especially gold, in the last few years, and we do need encouragement, in several ways, but I doubt whether or not we will get any encouragement by suspending development.
Mr. Welling. Now, Mr. Taylor, right on that point I think you have made a very interesting and pretty nearly conclusive statement, but will this development make for the production or will this assessment work make for the production of gold ?
Mr. Taylor. Now, let me answer that this way: If any of you have ever lived in mining camps — and I have lived in and near them for nearly 40 years — I went to Leadville in 1881 and have been living near there ever since. In every mining camp there are quite a num-
14 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
ber of men who have mining claims ; they are prospectors, who came out there and have spent their lives trying to make a fortune, and they always have several claims that they hope that they will make a strike in sometime, and they do their own work and make a living largely by doing assessment work on other mining claims, and they spend that money for grub and steel and powder, and it not only helps the prospector to live and develop his claims but it helps the grocery store, it helps the blacksmith, and it circulates and helps the entire community; and that $100 that is spent doing the assessment work on each mining claim circulates a dozen times in that camp, and it keeps up the camp, and it keeps all the camp encouraged and working, and if you suspend it, many people have got to get out of there and go away to make a living; that is all there is to it. There isn't any development if vou don't have any people doing any work. So that even if in doing the few feet of work on a claim and spending the $100 — even if they don't strike a pay mine, that money is not thrown away — the fellow that does that work spends that money in that community) and it goes to keep up the community, and the inhabitants of the camp keep on working, and among them all somebody will sometime strike it some place, and you will get development, you will get pay ore, and when you get a good strike or two you have got mines and a mining camp.
Mr. Welling. I am not thinking of that phase of it. Now, this man who mines 1 1 months in the year for some producing concern is taken away from the processes of production during one month in the year to go and work up his own assessment. Now, isn't it going to really decrease the production of the country to have this assessment work done rather than increase it ?
Mr. Taylor. In nearly every one of the mining camps, I think, throughout the West, the going concerns, that is, the mines that have been producing minerals, have many of them shut down. There aren't scarcely any of them working in some camps, some camps have only got one or two mines working; some of them are working on half time, and because of low-grade ores, and because of the high charges of smelting and also the high charge of transportation — 25 per cent that the Railroad Administration added a year or so ago — the smelter trust has tilted up the charges for smelting, and the result is that most of the low-grade mines are not working. The leasers on the mining claims are having a hard time.
Mr. Kinkaid. The low-grade mines can not work at a profit ?
Mr. Taylor. No; they can't work at a profit now, and there are lots of these men that are not the young men that have gone into the Army, but men who were formerly doing prospecting work. And many hard-up business men are interested in a few claims.
The Chairman. Army men are exempt anyhow,
Mr. Taylor. Yes; everybody that is in the Armv is exempt anyhow. None of the people that are in the Army or Navy have to do any of this work this year.
Mr. Welling. Now, I want to ask you another question, Mr. Taylor. These telegrams, which are very interesting, were all addressed by you to the newspaper editors of the localities. Don't you think
Mr. Taylor (interposing). I thought the newspaper editors in the mining towns know the general sentiment and could readily get hold
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 15
of the mining associations, and the mining men better than anyone else.
Mr. Welling. Don't you think it quite possible also that the newspaperman was influenced to a very large extent in the expression of the opinion that he sent back to you, from the very thing that you mentioned a moment ago, that a portion of that $100 circulated around through his business, and that he got some advertising, if this assessment work was continued? Isn't there an element of personal business in the expression of opinion that he sent to you there ?
Mr. Taylor. I hardly think so. Those are all very good men that I telegraphed to, and while it is true that that money would circulate and would help everybody and he might be helped a little by it, I know they are all thinking about the general welfare of the community and the development of it. Every one of them is giving me his honest, unselfish, and public-spirited opinion.
Now, gentlemen, I am not set in this matter at all, and I am not stubborn. I don't think the conditions in my district are much, if any, different from what they are with Mr. French, of Idaho, and Mr. Raker, of California, or Mr. Hawley, of Oregon, and all of we men from the 17 metalliferous mining States out there. I merely want to call your attention to the fact that there are two sides to this thing, and that for the past two years that assessment work has been suspended, mining has been almost at a standstill, and one of the things that has, I think, had a tendency to bring it to nearly standstill is this very committee that I was a member of for eight years suspending all this work and allowing people to go without doing anything at all. Of course I am not complaining about the past two years. Those laws were right and I supported them.
Mr. Burke. How many years has this law been in effect ?
Mr. Taylor. The assessment work has been suspended the past two years, 1917 and 1918.
Mr. Burke. How many years has the statute been in effect compelling them to spend $100 a year for development?
Mr. Taylor. Practically ever since 1872. The law was suspended on account of the panic oi 1893 and I think once since that.
Mr. Burke. Now, can you answer this question: About how much money is spent in Colorado a year on claims, the development of claims, at $100?
Mr. Taylor. A great many thousands of dollars. I can not give the amount.
Mr. Burke. That money then goes to labor ?
Mr. Taylor. It goes directly to labor, but it permeates all through every camp in the State.
Mr. Burke. The laboring man, the shoe man, the grocery man — everybody gets a little whack at it ?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir; that is what it does. It largely helps keep up the mining camps.
Mr. Burke. Then, with the passage of this resolution the State of Colorado would be denied this circulation of money through the medium of the working man and the store, the business man.
Mr. Taylor. If Congress passes this bill, that money will not be spent and it will not circulate. It wouldn't apply to Colorado any more than it would to any other mining State. I am just talking to the committee generally and giving you the conditions as my con-
16 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
stituents give them to me, and as I know them from visiting those camps every year.
Tne Chairman. I might say for the information of the committee and for Mr. Taylor that I tried to get from the Bureau of Mines or any department that could give it — I felt the Land Department could — a statement of what this assessment amounted to per year, and their reply was that it was impossible to get that information.
(The letter referred to follows:)
Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, July 21, 1919. Hon. Mahlon M. Garland,
Chairman Committee on Mines and Mining,
House of Representatives.
My Dear Mr. Garland: I have your letter of July 18, 1919, requesting to be advised of the amount of improvements on mining claims for the years 1916 and 1917, as required by section 2324 of the Revised Statutes.
The data which you desire is not in the possession of the Bureau of Mines or, in my belief, of any other branch of the Government service.
Whenever a mining claim is located a notice of location is filed only in the recorder's office of the district in which said mining claim is situated. No record of the claim or amount of assessment work performed comes to the General Land Office unless application for patent is filed, in which case the applicant must show that he has performed not less than $500 worth of assessment work.
The number of applications for patent for the year 1916 can be obtained from the General Land Office, but this would not, of course, represent the amount of assessment work performed on mining claims in that year, because a great deal of work is done on claims for which patents have never been applied, and, moreover, the $500 worth of work required as a condition to obtaining patent may have been ppread over as much as five years in the case of some claims, while in the case of others it may have been performed within one year. Cordially, yours,
Van H. Manning, Director.
Mr. Taylor. You can't get that information, Mr. Chairman, from the Interior Department or the General Land Office or the Bureau of Mines. This is the only way that record is kept. When you locate a mining claim you file a notice of your location in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county in which the claim is located. You don't file it in the Land Office. The United States Land Office doesn't have any record of these mining claims at all, and when the claimant does his annual assessment work each year he files (in the county recorder's office) an affidavit and pays 50 cents for it, and that shows that he has done his work for that year, and that holds his title, and when you pass a bill of this kind he merely files a " notice of his desire to hold said mining claim under this resolution" and that gives him a clean bill of health. For this year of 1919 he pays 50 cents instead of spending $100. That is the difference.
Now, gentlemen, in conclusion, if you report out the resolution at all you ought to, in my judgment, do two or three things: First, reduce the number of claims that can be exempt, and not allow any man or set of men to hold a large group of claims without developing or doing anything on them. Second, if you are going to pass this bill, I think you ought to include the oil-placer claims, and treat all of them alike. We have got more oil-shale placers in my State than in any other State in the Union. That is where the great oil-shale locations of this country are, not only in my State, but in my congressional district and in my own home county. I have got more oil shale in Garfield County in which I live than there is in 40 or 45
Annual, Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 17
other States of the Union, all put together; and if you are going to let them go on with assessment work let my people go along with the rest of them. Third, if you decide to favorably recommend the bill with any limit as to the number of claims that anyone may hold without doing any work on them you ought to require every owner to pay into the county treasury $10 apiece for each claim that he claims exemption for.
Mr. Kinkaid. Now, when it comes to oil shales, isn't it more important riqfht there — that is, doesn't that emphasize the importance of restricting the number of claims or limiting the number of claims that may go without assessment work?
Mr. Taylor. Yes; I think there are some parties who have located and are holding hundreds of those oil-shale claims in my district and have never yet done any assessment work on them.
Mr. Kinkaid. Isn't there some big concern that has got perhaps thousands of them ?
Mr. Taylor. I don't know how many. I know of one corporation that is holding a very large number of mining claims, I think over 200. Mr. Burke. How many have you got in your district, developed and in operation at the present time, in Colorado ? Mr. Taylor. What kind of claims ? Mr. Burke. Oil-mining placer claims.
Mr. Taylor. Not very many that are developed. Very few producers. As the gentleman said (Mr. Howard), they haven't yet discovered a satisfactory process of handling oil shale on a large scale that can compete with the flowing oil wells. That is something that will come after awhile, but they haven't gotten it developed yet.
Mr. Howard. Let me ask you right along that line, what would you think of the feasibility and the effect on the industry if Congress would, if it could, limit the number of these claims that could be held by any person, corporation, or partnership ?
Mr. Taylor. Well, you would have trouble in passing a bill limiting the number of claims that a party may locate, because that law has been in effect now for over 40 years, and while there probably ought to be some limit, I doubt the wisdom of trying to make that change now. But if you can't limit the number of claims a man or company may hold, you can at least limit the number that they can have exempt from doing assessment work on.
Mr. Howard. Right along that line, we have got that very proposition in our State. When our oil fields were opened up down home, the Standard Oil Co. undertook to get a blanket lease over the entire Creek Nation. Several of the independent operators, after years of fighting, got the Interior Department to limit the number of acres that any corporation, person, or partnership could hold to 4,800 acres. That has been the only thing that has enabled the independent operators to get into business at all out there, and here is what is coming in your shales: Unless there is some limit that can be placed, you are going to find one or two big corporations, within the next two years controlling the entire shale-oil output in this country, and workmg to the detriment of the people who have got to use that product. Now, is there any way that we might study out to prohibit that condition, so that the small man can do something with a small holding?
18 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Taylor. You know we have got an oil and coal leasing bill pending before the Committee on Public Lands. I am a member of that committee and we are going to report it out, I think, before a great while, and that limits the amount of oil-shale land that any one person can be interested in, directly or indirectly, to 5,600 acres. No corporation or stockholder can be interested in more than one such group of claims, aggregating 5,600 acres, and Dr. Maiming, the Director of the Bureau of Mines, says that he thinks that is a reasonable amount, because you have got to spend about $2,000,000 at least on a plant, and he and the Interior Department are willing to go that far to encourage development. We are going to provide for very liberal leases, but I don't think there will be very much opportunity for monopoly of large tracts, although there is a clause in the bill that if the owners fully comply with the law they have got the right to proceed to patent. But anyhow, I think the main oil-shale developments are going to be under lease or limited ownerships. But we have got that under another bill. That will not come before this committee.
This is an annual assessment mining proposition, and the first thing to decide is whether or not you want to do it at all; the second is whether or not you are going to curtail the number of claims that any one person can have, or whether you are going to leave it wide open ana let the stock selling speculator or claim hog hold 100 or any number of claims without putting in a dollar, or whether you are going to protect the poor fellow. Now, I know some of my colleagues from the West feel the other way about this matter, and I regret to oppose them. They have a perfect right to their opinions, and they may be just as near right as 1 am. But I want you to see the other side of it and realize that the mining is not being developed by this kind of suspension business. The war and two years suspension of assessment work, high prices, and other things have almost paralyzed mining, and I regret to say that the vote in the mining counties of Colorado last fall fell off a great deal from what it was before the war. Of course, the flu had much to do with it; but the people had gone away; they couldn't live there with no mining work oeing done, and they have gone to work at war industries and various things, and have gone out to get higher pay, and they haven't come back; but, nevertheless, if they had something to come back for many of them would come back.
The Chairman. You said something about the mining assessments having been suspended in 1893.
Mr. Taylor. Yes ; I think it was Senator Teller, our grand old Senator from Colorado, who put a bill through suspending the mining assessment work during the panic year of 1893 and possibly the next year 1894. My recollection is that that is all the suspensions that nave ever been made. There might have been some other one, but in the main it has only been for some wide calamity that has brought it about.
Mr. Welling. Mr. Taylor, before you stop, I want to ask you another question. Would it be possible for this committee to exempt some claim and not at the same time exempt all claims of a similar class ? Is it within the province of the committee to treat you, with 10 claims, differently than they would treat me with only 1 claim ? What is the legal status of that ?
AtfKUAL ASSESSMENT WORK OK MINING CLAIMS. 19
Mr. Taylor. I have not looked up the law and I am not absolutely positive; but from the common sense and common justice of it I have no doubt of the authority of Congress to make that limitation. What is the reason for passing this law f Why should you pass it ? Gentlemen will ask you to pass it because they say labor is scarce and high and they can't get the men, and they can't afford to pay the high prices for their work. Now, if a man or a company can afford to liold 25 or 50 or 100 mining claims, they can afford to do something on them. If they can't afford to do something on them and are just holding for sale, they ought to let go of some of them. That is ' l claim hogging"; that is not mining development. That is just monopolizing a whole district and preventing any development. I have no objection to a poor man or any man having his two or three claims exempted if he honestly located them before the 1917 and 1918 suspensions.
Mr. Welling. I am in absolute sympathy with the position you take, but I want to know how you can discriminate in your law between the big fellow and the little fellow — the man with 10 claims and the man with 2 claims ?
Mr. Taylor. The man who locates a lot of claims isn't a big fellow necessarily. Any man might locate a large group of claims. I have heard of one fellow in my county that went out on horseback and located a large number.
Mr. Welling. He didn't keep them.
Mr. Taylor. He can keep them if he don't have to do any work on them. There were hundreds of claims located in 1916 and the owners have never since been required to spend a dollar on them.
Mr. Burke. He could keep them, though, if this bill passed.
Mr. Taylor. Of course he could. He could go out and make " horseback" locations on jack-rabbit surveys of claims. That is no way of developing a country; that is just raw faking, brazen speculation. I talked with Senator Thomas from my State about this ; he is a very bright man; has been one of the leading mining lawyers of the West for over 40 years, and he feels that this bill should not pass, and he will vigorously oppose it if it ever goes over to the Senate, because he says it is dead wrong, and we ought not to exempt these claims any more; we have gone far enough; the war is over, and the owners ought to get back there and commence to opening up those mining claims.
Mr. Burke. Do the people of the western mining country think that has done mofe to develop their country than anything else ?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, the annual assessment law has made people do work on and develop their claims, and it has prevented the monopoly of claims. It has been a good law and has produced many a gooa mine.
Mr. Burke. I understood you to say that an oil company couldn't hold more than 4,800 acres.
Mr. Howard. That is, of any public land. They couldn't take a lease on more than 4,800 acres. What I refer to as public lands was Indian land in the Osage Nation.
Mr. Burke. The man, though, that had control of the stocks, say, in several large companies, would he be entitled under th law to hold more than that i
Mr. Howard. No, sir.
20 Annual, Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Burke. Is it not done ?
Mr. Howard. It probably is done through the supposed disbandonment of the Standard Oil agencies, the Standard Oil Co.'s subsidiaries. For instance, the question has now been raised about the Carter Oil Co., which is supposed to be a subsidiary of the Standard. In the Osage Nation they have already reached their 4,800 acres and the Standard has reached their 4,800, and the question is now being agitated as to whether or not they have a right to hold that much.
Mr. Burke. And the Ohio Oil Co. is a subsidiary of the Standard, and if they have got about 4,800, and if each one of them holds between four and nve thousand acres of land, you know that would run up to two or three hundred thousand that that one concern could hold.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. RAKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TQE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Mr. Raker. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, the presentation of this matter, I think, ought to be on the facts as they actually exist and as the law is.
I live in a mining district in the oldest State of the West, where gold was discovered and more gold has been taken out than in any other like territory in the world. The placer mining law was originated by virtue of the operations of the land there and the character of the soil and the water, whereby these men resorted to this custom and the custom then became a law by the enactment of Congress, and it has built up and made the mining communities .of the West. There isn't any doubt about it. Any man that has been in a mining district and knows the character and conditions, knows that it is these men who have gone out with their pack on their back and on foot, and have traveled over those mountains from one end to the other and have discovered the gold mines and the silver mines and the placers, and those that have gone out with a burro and stayed out all the year, in season and out of season. Those are the men that have developed the mining country of the West and the ones that are doing it to-day, and it is not the large concerns; not the fellow that actually obtains the mine after the poor prospector has discovered it that is getting the benefit of this, because he has already got his mine. This assessment has been a small amount, it is true, but it assisted in the development of the country.
Most of those mines have been discovered r>y grubstakes, the work of the man digging and prospecting through the mountains, working out there part of the year with somebody who has grubstaked him. He would go out and stay all summer, and possibly all fall, until the snow drove him in, and then if he discovered something good he reported it and the man that furnished him part of the material and part of his grub got an interest in his claim and he started to work it, and he worked a little more and developed a little more and put a little machinery on, a one-stamp or two-stamp or five-stamp mill, and he hauled his stuff in there, he bought a few mules, and finally it turned out to be a great mining camp. That is the fellow that developed this country; that is the man that we are asking assistance for to-day, that is scattered all over those
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims* 21
western mountains and that is trying to find the gold that is in those mountains and has not yet been discovered — and there is plenty of it there if we give the fellow that knows how the opportunity to do it, and that is what we are asking for, that relief to-day.
Everything has become so high within the last two years in tfie way of" hay or grain that where you could go into the mountains possibly without any hay and pasture, your animals, if you have them, you can't do it to-day. They used to get hay there for $10 or $15, but it costs all the way from $68 to $100 a ton now. Barley that was $2.50 costs $15; bacon that was 20 cents a pound costs 60, 70, and 80 cents; butter is $1 and $2 a roll, and everything else in proportion has raised so high that it is almost impossible at the present time for the man to get the necessary provisions to his place of development, to get the necessary machinery — even a little machinery — his little steel, enough iron to make the picks, enough coal to sfiarpen his picks and drills, enough steel to make his drills, enough banding iron to tie up and help fix his wall, with the saws to saw down the slabs whereby he may build up the tunnel or the shaft.
There isn't any slacker on this proposition; the honest developer goes in and worKs vear in and year out for the purpose of trying to develop and actually find a mine. He starts in on the level or he starts in on the decline, and he starts in at the bottom and raises his shaft upward — most of them try to get just enough drop so that the water will run out; he puts his door on and fixes it so that when he gets through with it he can lock it up until next year, when he goes back and adds more to it. Many of those are tile best paying mines we have in the world to-day, discovered by those men, and those are the people we are trying to represent, scattered all over my district, scattered all over the State of Oregon, scattered all over the State of Nevada and other places where they are trying to develop this country. You can go out there and see them, and it don't require anybody to tell you about them. The most peculiar thing in the evidence here in regard to these telegrams — and I am going to say some more things about these telegrams — the most peculiar thing about it on earth is that the newspaper man is trying to give you the sentiment of the country where it is evident by the telegram that it was sent off this evening, 2,000 miles away' and to-morrow morning at 8 o'clock the answer comes back with the full record of what there is in a county 100 miles square in the interest of miners that you have never seen. You don't see those fellows lying around town ; they are not the kind of fellows that put their feet up on the railings on the shady side of the building in the summer time; they are out in the mines; they are out in the mountains trying to develop them, and if they are not there, they are in the hayfield or some other place doing work. Think of it, in two hours those telegrams show that this newspaper man got over the county 100 miles square — some of them more — with mountains that he couldn't get over in a week to save his life, to get the sentiment of the mining interests of that county.
Mr. Taylor. Who would you telegraph to, to get the general sentiment of a mining district ? Who would know any more about it than the leading newspaper man would ?
22 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Raker. He don't know what the mining man is doing — the prospector. He may know a few fellows that wear spats and striped vests, that walk around claiming to be mining men that are in iact speculators and bunco steerers. There afre always a few of those in every community, but the real solid miner, the forty-niner that exists to-day in that country, he isn't running around a newspaper plant or any place else around the town; he is out attending to his business; and the last few years he hasn't been able to do it on account of the high expenses, the high cost of everything.
Mr. Taylor. I want to say to you that there isn't anybody in the State of Colorado that knows the mining interests any better than the editors of the Herald-Democrat, of Leadville, or the editors of the newspapers in those other mining camps, that have been there for 3d or 40 years. They know the sentiment of that community.
Mr. Raker. I don't know anything about what those people know, but I was just referring to that as a matter of evidence coming too quick.
Now, gentlemen, this legislation passed for 1917 and 1918 unanimously. It passed this committee last year and was reported out; passed the Senate, resolution 156 passed the Senate unanimously and came to this committee and was reported by the committee unanimously and went to the floor for consideration, and just because of war-time conditions, matters pending then, we did not get the matter through and it never got to a vote, just simply because the calendar was crowded with hundreds of other bills, and it was crowded off. We had a resolution in and a report on it, but they said they recommended the one that passed the Senate. This year it was the same way; it went to the Committee on Public Lands, the Secretary of the Interior reported favorably on it; he reports favorably upon the resolution introuced by Mr. Hawley, this resolution, House resolution 150, which was introduced and transferred or got sent to this committee — a question having arisen as to whether or not this committee or the Public Lands Committee had jurisdiction. Now, that is settled. This bill is before this committee and it is before them for consideration, and I trust that my good friend who was so anxious to get the matter transferred that I didn't realize that he wanted to get it to this committee, hoping that it would be killed, when he knew that before the Public Lands Committee it would have been almost unanimously reported out and gotten into shape on the floor of the House and been acted on, and I know that this committee with all the facts presented to it will not turn this resolution down but will report it favorably, to the end that the House may have an opportunity to consider it.
Now, gentlemen, I want to call your attention to this fact: Who can point to a State to-day where the placer mining law in placer districts or metalliferous districts have done an injustice to anyone or been a detriment? Where is it that it has not been an actual benefit and has actually developed mining ? Now, it is claimed that four or five or six years ago two or three hundred claims were filed on by one man. W hat became of them ? Does the gentleman say ? Every one of those claims had to have assessment work done at the end of the year, under the statute, $100 apiece, and on 100 claims that meant how much? Is that man going to put $10,000 into those claims the first year without knowing what he is going to do, and
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 23
another $10,000 the next year? We know people don't do those things, and he knows that on the very minute at midnight on the 31st of December of each vear, if he hasn't done the assessment work, his $100 assessment work, at midnight, one minute after 12 o'clock on the 31st of December of each year, the claims are jumpable; he loses absolutely all title to everything he has got there unless he has done his assessment work. I don't care if he has got the $100, if he isn't there ready to do the work for that year and has made some effort and is right on the ground at midnight himself, if some other man gets in there and gets hold of it on the morning of January 1 of the next year, he loses his claim, and everybody knows it.
Mr. Burke. Do I understand you to say that if a man has a claim and hasn't performed any work on it for a year, on December 31 somebody else can jump it?
Mr. Raker. It is jumpable at midnight, December 31, one minute after midnight. The year has gone by.
Mr. Burke. Now, tnen, on the other hand, if he has done $100 worth of work and pays a man $12 a day for nine days' work, it is not jumpable?
Mr. Taylor. That is right.
Mr. Burke. Is there any place that you can lease land or hold ground outside of Colorado without paying the rental ?
Mr. Baker. I don't get that.
Mr. Burke. I say, is there any place, any State in the Union outside of the State of Colorado, that you could hold title to property without paying some consideration ?
Mr. Raker. This is Government land, supposed to be worth nothing except for the mineral that may be in it. The man goes to work and develops it,' and after he has spent $500 on it to get a claim — a claim is 300 feet on either side of the lode, 1,500 feet long — you can apply for a patent and obtain a patent to it if you pay $500 and then pay the price per acre for the land as fixed by the department.
Mr. Burke. Then he has two options. He has the option of performing work on it to the amount of $100 or else taking out a patent and paying the Government $500 for it.
Mr. Kaker. No, he has got to do $500 worth of development work before he can acquire the patent. Then he applies for the patent, makes his application to the register and receiver of the land office. That notice is published, and then he appears with his witnesses and testifies before the register or receiver, as the case may be, showing that he has his claim marked, designated, and recorded and has done so much work on it, say $100 a year for five years, or $500 for one year, or a year and a half; and if his record is all clear, the register gives him a certificate of purchase. The record is then sent up to the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Commissioner of the General Land Office goes over it, and if it is all right he O. K.'s it. , Then it goes to the Secretary of the Interior for his approval, and if it is all right he approves it.
Mr. Burke. You say that this bill is necessary for the man out in your country to hold his claim — that he could hold his claim if this bill was passed, removing this restriction on him ?
Mr. Raker. I say, as they have stated to me, there will be many — I think hundreds — of claims lost if these men are not given the relief this year, on account of the high cost of material as I have stated.
24 Annual. Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Burke. The reason I asked you the question was this: The men now that own the properties, the development properties, surely are in a position to hire a man nine days in the year at $12 a day to develop them ?
Mr. Raker. There isn't any testimony or any question about the $12 paying a man.
Mr. Burke. Now, wouldn't the man work himself nine days in the year and wouldn't that give him credit on his claim for development?
Mr. Raker. But he can't go in there and do a fake job.
Mr. Burke. But how are you going to develop the country unless you do the work on it ?
Mr. Raker. Now as to the development of the country, Mr. Burke, suppose here is a mining claim up in the mountains, 15 or 20 miles from any living human being; this man has made a trail up there, for which he gets no consideration; he has hauled his material up there; he has carried it on his back; he finds a trace of what is to be a lode claim. He digs in 5 or 10 or 15 feet and finds some mineral, some rock, that appears upon his analysis there on the ground with his mortar and his glass and his tools, that it has a trace of gold in it. This man now says: "This year things are so high that I can't go up there; everybody has moved out of that country." Are you going to injure that particular mountain slope and canyon where there isn't anything within 20 miles of it except a California lion or a wild cat, or let him wait until next year when he can go up there and put an honest day's work in and develop that as he ought to develop it for the purpose of finding a gold mine there ?
Mr. Burke. Does he get credit for the four or five days that he works getting in ?
Mr. Raker. Why, certainly.
Mr. Burke. Now, if I understand you, this will exempt him from going up this year, but he can go up next year ?
Mr. Raker. That is it exactly.
Mr. Monahan. This is all new to me, Judge, and is very interesting. Is there anything wrong in exempting one or two or four or five of these claims, to protect this class of men which you have just described, who blazed trails, dug holes, and carried grub? Does it make any difference whether he has one claim or two or five ? This committee might be a corporation and have 500 claims that keep another partner of this fellow from filing on a claim that he would like to alongside of the one that he has opened. Now, is there anything wrong in having the one claim or two claims or five claims — something like that — exempt, and make that the limit for the purpose of eliminating the claim hog, as I think Mr. Taylor calls him, and throwing the rest of these claims open for the old '49 miner to work ?
Mr. Raker. Well, I want to say to you that this has been general, and no injustice has been done, but I think you ought to make it general, because if the man really has a large number of claims and hasn't proved up on them, he will do his work whether you pass this law or not.
Mr. Welling. There is no objection, then, to making a limitation ?
Mr. Raker. No specific limitation, but I think you will get better results.
Mr. Welling. It would make no difference if he is going to do his work.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 25
Mr. Raker. He might do it anyhow, because he is the rich fellow. The fellow that has got a large number of claims has got something that he thinks is valuable, and he has got a corporation behind him and he is there prepared to do the work and is going to do it, because he is working right on the shaft on the one claim, which applies to all the balance that adjoins it.
Mr. Welling. Having stated that, you have no objection to limiting the number of claims? What have you got to say about the legal phases of the limitation of the number 01 claims ? It looks to me like a discrimination to limit the number of claims. I am troubled about knowing whether you can limit them or not.
Mr . Raker. Well, I want to answer that specifically. I don't think you ought to limit them.
Mr. Welling. Can you limit them? Would it be within the province of the law to say that the man that had one claim should be excused from assessment work, while the man that had two claims had to work one of them ?
Mr. Raker. I think you could, but I don't think it would be just.
Mr. Welling. If you can, I want to do it ; that is all there is about it.
Mr. Taylor. I don't think there is any doubt, Mr. Welling, but what Congress has that power.
Mr. Raker. Now, the question of oil — that is brought in only for the purpose of defeating this bill.
Mr. Monahan. Just one other question before you leave that — is the custom in your country such that there are many large holdings — that is, holdings of numerous claims?
Mr. Raker. No, excepting this way — and I think I am stating the facts as they actually exist — for instance, a man makes a fairly good strike; he locates his claim. Now, if there are other claims located around him they are located because of the strike he has made. Now, they might buy this man out. They might get 10 or 15 or 20 claims surrounding this first claim, because of the fact that the placer claim or the lode claim rock looks so good that they can afford to put up a mill. Now, they are not going to run the risk of not doing their assessment work.
Mr. Monahan. That case doesn't cover the point.
Mr. Raker. Now he spoke abDut a man going out on a burro and locating 100 claims. They don't do that. They never have done that in my district, and the only time that they nave done it was in the case of the oil shale, in the record before the Committee on Public Lands in that legislation a year ago, in the testimony presented before the committee. A lot of fellows, even the county officers, went out and located a lot of oil shales, and we tried to cut them out in the legislation on the oil-leasing bill. Now, this going out and locating claims on a burro is all imagination, of the kind and character described by the gentleman from Colorado, because in the first place, he must place his monuments; he must mark the exterior boundaries so that they are readily traced; he must then go to work and post his notice; ne must file that notice with the recorder. Now he is not doing that on hundreds of claims when it will cost him a lot of monev to do it in the first instance, and he must pay $100 a year on each claim for assessment work, and if he doesn't do it he loses the claim.
Mr. Taylor. In one hearing held before the Public Lands Committee the testimony was that one man filed 100 claims in one day.
26 Annual Assessment Work On Miking Claims.
Mr. Raker. And I am telling you that that was because of legislation that was pending, and the committee turned around and gave him three times as much — five times as much — by the legislation,, at one fell swoop. They said, " We think your filing on your claims is wiong," but the gentleman from Colorado, with all the representatives from Colorado, turned around and said this man should have the right to obtain title to 5,000 acres if he wanted to.
Mr. Monahan. Now, one oher question. Supposing that the Standard Oil Co. has started out to get control — they don't do it, of course, but suppose they did — would 'this exemption that you have here enable those men to go in and file on 500 or 1,000 or 5,000 of these claims, and then hold them all without developing or anything ?
Mr. Raker. No; I will answer that in this way: An those claims that are legal, the work done or the extension made last year, must stand or fall upon the records that then stood; the only question is, now, whether or not any claim or those claims this year shall be exempted from the assessment work. Now, I want to make that so clear that there can be no misunderstanding about it.
Mr. Taylor. The law was suspended for 1917 and 1918, so there hasn't been any assessment work done for three years now. None since some time in 1916.
Mr. Raker. Yes; there has. Now, I want to ask this question, because this is the crux of the whole thing: All claims that are valid by virtue of the assessment work having been done or the application of the statute for 1917 and 1918 are valid to-day on the 31st of December, 1918? Now, I make myself plain, do I not ?
Mr. Monahan. Yes.
Mr. Raker. New, I want yo\i to get this — this just applies to what you have said — every man, Standard Oil or otherwise, who goes upon the public domain, or went upon the public domain after the 1st day of January, 1919, doesn't have to do the assessment work this year. Do I make that plain ?
Mr. Monahan. Yes.
Mr. Raker. Therefore, all those who filed mining claims this year, this bill would not apply to at all. Now, it only applies to those who v had valid existing and subsisting mining claims in existence on the 31st of December, 1918, that we are trying to protect.
Mr. Monahan. One other question right there, Judge, supposing that I, representing the Morgan Syndicate of New York, went out there and filed, on that day, or the day before, or the day following, on 500 claims, and I still hold them without development
Mr. Raker (interposing). You made application last year?
Mr. Monahan. Yes; and the very fact that I am there in the interest of the Morgan Syndicate and filed on these claims and am holding them would prevent the '49 miner from going on any one of them ?
Mr. Raker. No; because the fellow must have been a miner himself, or interested in it to have done it; no tenderfoot could have done it or would have done it. That never occurred ; it don't occur. You can't go any place in the mining district of the West and find such a thing as that occurring. If it had it might have been part of a temporary thing and the next year wipes it out.
Mr. Hawley. Before you pass to oil locations, may I ask you one question, if this is not the situation in your country as it is in mine ?
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 27
Reference has been made here to the importance of giving these men work. Now, in my country all the men who have oeen accustomed to do the work are either in service or else they are in some war industry, or are on the farms or in the orchards, and are making very large wages. Now, if they are required to go back and do the work on these mining claims, it will be a disadvantage in my country to the laborers' themselves; they will have to lay off from their present work and go back and do work that renders no special service to the public at this time, but if they are left alone to go on with their present occupations they will help harvest the crops — and we are very short of workers up in my country; a great many of the crops, both fruit and grain, the farmers some of them are going to lose — at least part of them — and if the men are taken away they are going to lose a great deal more of the crops and the country is going to feel an additional food shortage. They are also employed in other industries, making good wages, and it is no advantage to them — to the laborers — to be required to go back and do this work, because they are better situated now for the good of the country than they would be otherwise.
Mr. Burke. Now suppose that condition reverses itself within the next two or three months, and those men go out into the country; then what ?
Mr. Hawley. How was that ?
Mr. Burke. Suppose that the condition that you have just mentioned changed in the next two or three months; that there is not employment enough for all the labor in the country and that there are two men for one job; then would you want them to be exempt?
Mr. Hawley. That is not the situation.
Mr. Burke. That is the condition in Pittsburgh to-day. There are 25,000 idle men walking the streets of Pittsburgh to-day.
Mr. Hawley. Would they go out and work on these mining claims for $100?
Mr. Burke. Well, that remains to be seen. There have been men in years gone by who have left Pittsburgh to go to your mining camps.
Mr. Hawley. I think that is an important consideration for the committee; if they are taken out of their present employments it is going to be a detriment to the public generally in the matter of food production and other matters of production that are very essential at this time.
Mr. Raker. Let me just illustrate that one feature again and then I will not refer to that further. About the men who will do this work, if you could just close your eyes and fix some spot in the desert, or fix some mountain side or canyon where there isn't any water within 5 or 6 miles, little timber, and find this man going up there and establishing his little tent or little camp to do his work, you are not going to find many men from Pittsburgh or other places going 3,700 miles and from the centers of population with their conveniences, electric lights, a good bed and good grub, going up into these mountains and hunting out these mining claims.
Mr. Burke. Well, I believe the men from my country are the men that have made your country.
Mr. Taylor, 'the whole question is whether or not you want to have mining development, or do you want the mining claims to lay idle and the people to go to some other place ?
28 Annual, Assessment Wokk On Mining Claims.
The Chairman. I see that we can't get through to-day, gentlemen of the committee, and I think we probably can arrange to continue the hearings at a later date.
Mr. Raker. Whenever you have another hearing I have a lot of letters here that I want to put in. They have not been sent for but they have been sent to me.
The Chairman. I will notify you of the next meeting. We will adjourn now.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the committee adjourned.)
Committee on Mines and Mining,
House of Representatives,
Thursday, July 24, 1919.
The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. Mahlon M. Garland (chairman) presiding.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Raker wants to finish his statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. RAKER, A RESPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA—
Mr. Raker. Mr. Chairman, before concluding, I want to read some letters and make some further comments.
I hope the statement made by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, that one of the Senators from his State was opposed to this legislation, will have no weight with this committee. It passed the Senate before — this same legislation, last year, I mean triis year — and one Senator can not hold up legislation. The opposition of one man doesn't go very far where there are 96 Senators and about 435 Representatives. One man can have a voice, but that isn't very much in all that number. If Colorado is in a position to claim that she doesn't desire this, of course the committee could simply make it "excepting the State of Colorado," as is done in many other bills of this character.
But that is not necessary, because, as the gentleman from Colorado says, what he wants is that you do not exempt oil mining claims, and they really haven't any of these placer mining claims to any large extent now in Colorado, and we did not think it proper to include oil claims in this legislation because of the much-mooted question then pending, on which there was legislation before the House and Senate which we had been working on for six years, trying to get some legislation whereby these oil people could get patents who actually developed their lands, and those that did not could at least get a lease; therefore we thought this ought not to apply to those claims.
I take it for granted — getting down now to the bill — that this
. matter is so familiar to the committee, the mineral development of
the United States and the statutes authorizing this kind of work —
the law will be found in section 910 of the Revised Statutes, section
2319, 2320, 2321, 2322, and 2323, which is the one involved.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 29
Mr. Welling. No; 2324.
Mr. Raker. Yes; and 2324.
Mr. Welling. How long is section 2324, Judge?
Mr. Raker. It is not so very long; I will read it.
Sec. 2324. The miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining claims hereafter made shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim. On each claim located after the tenth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than one hundred dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year. On all claims located prior to the tenth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, ten dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made by the tenth day of June, eighteen hundred and seven ty-four, and each year thereafter, for each one hundred feet in length along the vein until a patent has been issued therefor; but where such claims are held in common, such expenditures may be upon any one claim; and upon a failure to comply with these conditions the claim or mine upon which such failure occurred shall be open to relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made, provided that the original locators, their heirs, assigns, or legal representatives, have not resumed work upon the claim after failure and before such location. Upon the failure of any one of several coowners to contribute his proportion of the expenditures required hereby, the coowners who have performed the labor or made the improvements may, at the expiration of the year, give such delinquent coowner personal notice in writing or notice by publication in the newspaper published nearest the claim for at least once a week for ninety days, and if at trie expiration of ninety days after such notice in writing or by publication such delinquent should fail or refuse to contribute his proportion of the expenditure required by this section his interest in the claim shall become the property of his coowners who have made the required expenditures.
Mr. Welling. What do you understand those words "in common" to mean?
Mr. Raker. That is where, as I understand it, eight men take 160 acres.
Mr. Parrish. Eight men take 160 acres?
Mr. Raker. Eight men locate 20 acres here and 20 acres there and 20 acres over there, and take up the whole quarter section and then work the whole 160 acres together.
Mr. Welling. Suppose one man could get 160 acres?
Mr. Raker. He can't do it.
Mr. Welling. But one man can take as many claims as he can locate, can't he, under the placer mining law? He can take a thousand claims if he wants to.
Mr. Raker. There are two different kinds of claims. There is the lode claim and there is the placer claim, and he can of course locate one claim and then another claim, and then another, but he has got to do his assessment work on all of them, and the fact that he can locate a large number of claims has never had any effect.
Mr. Welling. I want to get that straight. A man can take as many placer claims as he can stake out, can't he?
Mr. Raker. Oh, yes; but he has to do his assessment work on every one of them, and we ask that for the year 1919 that assessment requirement be suspended.
Now just one other and then I will be through [reading]:
Sec. 2325. A patent for any land claimed and located for valuable deposits may be obtained in the following manner:
30 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
And then follows the general procedure as to the obtaining of the patent.
Now this bill, to repeat, only relieves the claimants who had a valid claim in 1918; it does not affect any who filed in 1919. That is the way it stands. Of course, there are some of us who would like to see it include this year, but it only relates to those who had valid claims in 1918. I want to get that very clearly before the committee.
The Chairman. And if they took a claim this year they wouldn't have to do any assessment work anyhow.
Mr. Raker. In this year they would not have to do any assessment work, that is correct.
Mr. Welling. Judge, why do you make that statement that men locating on mining claims the first of this year would not be exempted under this law ?
Mr. Raker. That is the law. You don't have to do any assessment work in the year in which you make your location.
Mr. Welling. You said T ou hoped they would be included; but they are included.
Mr. Raker. Not in the provisions of this bill.
Mr. Welling. But it don't make any difference whether they come under the provisions of this bill or not, the don't have to do any assessment work this year. If the location is made this year they are exempt.
Mr. Raker. Yes; they are exempt.
Mr. Welling. Then why do you want them included?
Mr. Raker. Well, I meant so it would apply for next year. A good many of these people are filing right now while this legislation is up, and will file before the year is up, and if they were included they would know where they stand for next year.
Mr. Welling. You could write 1919 and 1920 in there and make it apply to them.
Air. Kaker. Yes; and of course if I had the doing of it I would make it 1920, but I did not have it.
Mr. Robsion. What is the necessity for this legislation, Judge?
Mr. Raker. I am just starting on my statement now. I made it partly yesterday. I have a few letters here which I would like to put in. Here is one from Forks of Salmon, dated July 1, 1919. Forks of Salmon is that picture that I drew for you yesterday, one of the richest mining districts in the State of California. Up until the last two years, the only way you could get in there was either on a burro or walk, ride a burro over the trail or walk. I went down there 15 years ago, over 15 feet of snow, on snowshoes. That is the kind of country it is, and they have just been drawing the gold right out of that country to help build up this Nation. They hope to get a road down there shortty [reading]:
Forks op Salmon, Calif., July l y 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: I can not refrain from writing you regarding the joint resolution authorizing the suspension of assessment work on mining claims during the year 1919.
You doubtless know that the gold-mining industry is in a deplorable condition, and we have not yet had time to reorganize and adjust ourselves to the new conditions, and much of this assessment work for 1919 will be useless labor and a heavy burden.
Annual Assessmekt Work Oh Mlnhstg Claims. 31
The gold-mining industry needs every encouragement possible and every dollar for new equipment.
Yours, very truly,
L. £. Taggart.
Now, nobody fools that man; he knows the conditions. Here is one from Los Angeles, Calif., dated June 12, 1919. That is 700 miles from where this first man writes [reading]:
Los Angeles, Calif., June 12, 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Raker: Before leaving Kennett for a brief business trip here all the old timers who have assessment work to do asked me to drop you a line and try and learn if there is a chance of relief from assessment work on their mining claims this year.
The smelter at Kennett has closed down on account of the low price of copper. Trusting to hear from you soon and with best wishes, I am, Sincerely, yours,
John L. Maginnis,
Kennett, Calif.
Now, I want to stop right there. The reading of that shows that that gentleman is not a man who is filing on 200 or 300 or 400 claims; he is just one of these good old miners who is out there developing that country.
Mr. Welling. How many do you suppose he has got?
Mr. Raker. Probably three or four. He has been working on them night and dav, hoping some day he will be able to develop a mine and get somebody to go in with him, and in his good old days he will live in ease and contentment.
Mr. Welling. These fellows that you are speaking for, these pioneer prospectors, haven't ordinarily got more than two or three claims, have they?
Mr. Raker. No; sometimes three or four or five; sometimes two, and sometimes one. They may sometimes have five or six, depending upon how early they get in. This man writes from Los Angeles, but he comes from Kennett, which is in my district.
Here is another one from R. R. Gumbert. This man is from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Welling. Well, Judge, you ought not to have read that about the smelter being closed down, had you ?
Mr. Raker. Why, yes.
Mr. Welling. That would look as though there would be some idle men there to work the mining claims.
Mr. Raker. No; they don't do that kind of work. That is not the work they do. Those men are away, and these people can't afford to pay the wages to do this work. I possibly have not made that clear. These mines had to shut down because the men have left and have gone to other places to work, because of the low price of gold — gold hasn't risen any; everything else in the United States and in the world has risen except gold. It costs about double as much, sometimes three times as much, to produce gold as it did before the war, but gold has not risen; so, therefore, they can not afford to pay the wages to these miners that they paid before; consequently the miners have been quitting and have gone away to other places to work, and even the established mines have had to close down. Some towns have been almost depopulated by the exodus, and I say give these fellows a chance to get on their feet, these assessment men.
32 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims*
This year conditions are being relieved every day, and as I read before the committee — I wish I had it here to read — as I read before the Committee on Public Lands, in the State of California there have been practically 100 per cent of jobs found for the men that have returned — 100 per cent in the greater part of California. Practically every man that is returning has gone right to a job without the loss of a day. That is the condition in the West. There isn't any question about there being plenty of work. I will just let that go in without reading it. It is on the same subject, from a man that lives in my district. (The letter referred to follows:)
Dravosburg, Pa., June 2, 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Judge Raker: Your favor of May 28 to hand, for which I thank you and wish to say you are quite right about a certain sentiment against an extension of the law relieving mining claimants from assessment work for the years 1917 and 1918. However, that sentiment is held by a small minority of claim owners and who are exclusively claim jumpers. I know several of them myself in Plumas and Placer Counties, and none of them was in the war. Moreover, I doubt if a single man who was in the service can be found who is opposed to the extension, and it is quite evident the objectors to an extension have a selfish purpose in view, as an extension would not prevent anyone from doing all the work they wanted to do. I am sure if you obtained an extension it would meet with the hearty approval of your constituents. Ask your Republican friend, E. C. Kelsey, treasurer of Plumas County, Calif. With kind regards, I remain, Sincerely, yours,
R. R. Gumbert.
Mr. Raker. Here is a letter from the California State Mining Bureau, which reads as follows:
California State Mining Bureau,
San Francisco, June 25, 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: The courtesy will be appreciated if you will advise me relative to the status of the bill which was introduced into Congress some weeks ago providing for the suspension of assessment work on mining claims during the period of the war. This office is in receipt of a large number of inquiries relative to this matter, and definite information on the subject will not only be sincerely appreciated, but will be of material service to the mining public of California. Very truly, yours,
F. M. N. Hamilton,
State Mineralogist.
Here is one to the same effect from a man in Happy Camp, Calif., another mining district:
Happy Camp, Calif., June 16, 1919, Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Raker: Do you think that Congress will order the suspension of assessment work on mining claims for the year of 1919, or would you advise that we proceed to do this work? Thanking you f<5r advice given and for your valuable time, I am,
Very truly, yours, H. G. Boorse.
Here is a letter from J. M. Davidson, of the Thunder Creek Mining Co., Seattle, Wash., which I will let go into the record without reading.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 33
(The letter referred to follows:)
Thunder Creek Mining Co.,
Seattle, Wash., June 25, 1919. Hon. J. E. Raker,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Dear Friend: As a miner for many years in Alaska, where I now own placer ground which has been exempted by law from the necessity of doing assessment work for 1919, I feel that it is only fair that similar treatment should be extended to the owners of mining ground in the rest of the United States, for similar reasons* exist therefor. I therefore urge you to introduce and advocate the extension of theact of 1917 and 1918, relieving the owners of mining claims in the various Statesfrom the necessity of doing the annual assessment work on their claims for those years, so as to include the year 1919. Gold miners have been put up against it good and hard by the war conditions, and it is not only justice but absolutely a necessity as otherwise many a miner who has worked ground for years will loose out entirely unless it is done.
I am in Seattle temporarily, my home being 683 Oakland, Calif., and you will remember me as county cl?rk of Siskiyou County years ago. This matter has been? put up to me so strong since I came here by many men who are now employed in the* ship yards, and who have claims they worked for years back in the mountains of Idaho, Montana, and in Oregon, and who can not kave here and go there to do this - work without gr3at loss and no return, that I have concluded to write you and ask: you to interest yours ?lf in it.
Personally, I nave no ground that would be affected, but it is in the interest of the? gold miner that has been so hard hit by the war that I write. Very sincerely, yours,
J. M. Davidson.
Mr. Raker. Here is one from Judge John F. Davis, whose address
is San Francisco, but who used to live in my district and was judge
of the superior bench there for a number of years, a mining man who
is familiar with the mining conditions in the West. He urges the
passage of this legislation.
(The letter referred to follows:)
San Francisco, June 26, 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Judge Raker: I find on my arrival here that a number of people are very anxious to see your bill suspending an annual assessment work for this year go through to success.
Would you be good enough to let me know whether you have not been able to get the report from Vogelsang's office, and what progress you have been able to make in the matter?
Very sincerely, yours,
John F. Davis.
Mr. Raker. Here is a letter from George L. Hughes, attorney at law, Berkeley, Calif., indorsed by J. D. Murphey, who is a practicing lawyer now, but was a judge in my own county, one of the real mining districts of the State for many years. He is familiar with that entire country and the necessity of this work.
(The letter referred to follows:)
Berkeley, Calif., June 20, 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: T am interested in mining claims in Nevada County, Calif., which is in your congressional district. During lie yeaiB 1917 and 1918 the statutes requiring annual assessment work were suspended by act of Congress. Speaking for myself and others equally interested, I believe there is a greater urgency now existing for a further suspension of the annual assessment work for the year J 91 9, owing to the jumping prices for labor and material and the further difficulty of obtaining labor. I am informed that it is proposed to suspend the requirements of the statute for the year 1919 under the same conditions as for 1917 and 1918. I am sure that conditions warrant such action
34 Annual, Assessment Wokk On Mining Claims.
and that all mining claimants will duly appreciate any assistance you may be able to give toward that end. I will greatly appreciate any information you may be able to afford me on the matter,
Yours, very respectfully,
Geo. L. Hughes.
My Dear Judge : I have had many inquiries in regard to this matter and trust you may be able to get another year's suspension, Sincerely, yours,
J. D. Murphey, Judge.
Mr. Raker. I imagine there is no man in the United States who is more familiar with the mining conditions as they actually are in that territory than Judge Murphey.
Here is a telegram from the California Metal Producers' Association,
which I will read :
San Francisco, Calif., June 17, 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, B.C.
We recommend and urge the passage of your joint resolution No. 101. The goldinining industry is fighting for its very life, and unless every possible form of relief is offered it will die.
California Metal Producers' Association.
Also a telegram from W. J. Loring, who is familiar with that condition as well. This is dated San Francisco, June 17, and reads:
Heartily indorse House joint resolution 101 and strongly urge you to press passage of same.
Here is a letter from Forest, Sierra County, Calif., near the home of
the old Downeyville district, the historic mining district of California
Forest, Sierra County, Calif., July 6, 1919. Hon. John E. Raker,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Raker. I see by the paper that one of the Oregon Congressmen has introduced a bill asking that this year's assessment work on mining claims be eliminated.
If you think there is any chance of its being passed, would consider it a great favor to hear from you; otherwise do not bother to answer this.
Owing to the high prices existing, caused by the war, the heavy war taxes we have ta meet, and above all the fact that gold values have remained the same, I think the above should be passed to at least include gold-mining claims. Very truly,
Geo. F. Stone, General Manager North Fork Mine.
Here is a letter from Kennett, Calif. — you know we have placer mining claims and lode mining claims, the lode mining claim where they drill into the rock as distinguished from the placer mining claim that they wash, although they are identically the same so far as the law is concerned. This letter is from Kennett, Calif., the location, of the smelter that I just read about awhile ago. It reads as follows:
United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co.,
Kennett, Calif., June 28, 19H9, Hon. J. E. Raker,
House of Representatives, Washington, B. C.
Dear Mr. Raker: I have seen in the newspapers that you have introduced a bill releasing the owners of unpatented mining claims from the necessity of doing assessment work for the year 1919.
I would be greatly obliged if you would advise me if you think there is a fair chance of your being able to have this bill passed.
AfffftJAL ASdflagJOftrT WO*K Otf MINING CLAIMS. 3&
This company owns a large number of unpatented mining claims, on which we will have to do the assessment work if this bill is not put through. Under the present very unsatisfactory conditions of the copper business, which have forced us to shut down, we would of course prefer not to spend the-money for this assessment work, but a more important factor' is the acute shortage of labor in this part of California, which would make it very difficult for us to obtain the necessary men to do the assessment work on our outlying claims.
I would greatly appreciate any information you can give me on this subject. With best regards, I remain, very truly, yours,
G. W. Metcalfe, Manager.
I know Mr. Metqalfe and have known him for a good many years. He is a very high-class, intelligent, honorable gentleman. These people have a smelter, and they nave a mine where they are taking ore out, and they have spent a large fortune in that work. This country has made many claims upon these people for copper and gold and they require a large territory to work upon. Everybody is anxious and desirous for those people to continue, but because of the mining conditions, the price of gold and the price of copper now, the cost of production, the cost of machinery and the war board shutting it off from them a year and a half ago, they had to shut down.
Here is a statement that I am going to put into ihe record without reading. It is from the Wallace Miner, Wallace, Idaho, and it shows that these people up there are desirous that this legislation should pass and that the exemption should be given, and the reasons for it, as I have stated to the committee. Is there any objection to that article going in ?
The Chairman. No; not at all.
Ml*. Raker. I can read it if you wish. He states it better than I can do, because my statement has been a little disconnected.
(The paper referred to follows :)
[From the Wallace Miner, Wallace, Idaho, July 3, 1919.]
Write to Congressmen Urging Passage of Raker Bill Suspending Annual
Assessment Work on Mining Claims.
In order to receive any susbstantial benefit from the pending bill providing for the suspension of assessment work on mining claims, it should be passed without further delay. Half the year is now gone and the season will soon be here when the work must be done if no relief is granted by Congress. Many claim owners have postponed doing assessment work, believing that Congress would see the justice of passing a relief measure. The bill now pending in the House introduced by Representative Raker, of California, should be passed. It provides for the suspension of assessment work mining claims until December 31 of the year following the conclusion of peace, and as peace has just been finally concluded and will no doubt be speedily ratified by the various governments, this law would make the period of suspension extend until December 31, 1920. The mining' sections of the West are entitled to this concession. Since the armistice was signed the mining industry of the West has been greatly depressed, many mines have suspended production altogether and practically all have curtailed their output. Seven months have passed since the armistice was signed, and while the prices of the metals have advanced somewhat and the general market has shown some improvement, the fact remains that there are still large surplus stocks on hand which were accumulated for war purposes which must b# disposed of before there can be expected a healthy market that will warrant a resumption of normal production. Naturally and necessarily this condition which has forced a curtailment of mineral production has also checked new mining development enterprises and exerted a most depressing influence upon all lines of business dependent upon the mining industry.
36 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Will Impose A Obeat Hardship.
Under these circumstances the enforcement of the law requiring annual assessment work on mining claims will impose a great hardship upon the thousands of people in the mining sections of the West. The relief is more necessary now than it was during the war, when Congress very promptly passed an exemption law. At that time the enacting of the law was to enable people to devote their energies toward helping to win the war, the purpose being to discontinue so far as possible all work not contributing to that end. The demand for metals had brought great prosperity to the people of the mining districts generally and they could have performed the work without serious hardship, although the higlj cost of labor and supplies would have made it impossible to make much of a showing for the expenditure, and to secure men to do the work was a serious problem. Now, tlye prosperity of war is a thing of the past, but the high prices are still with us and the labor shortage still prevails. The cost of labor is just the same as when the war was on and the prices of powder and all materials and supplies are as high and in some cases higher than during the war. The large mining companies are not so much interested in this relief measure as the thousands of individual claim owners and small development companies which are financed through levying assessments. The large companies generally have their holdings patented. It is the prospector, the wage earner, the business man, and the small development company who require this relief, and if Congress fails to grant it, they will be subjected to great hardsnips in doing the work, and many of them will doubtless find it impossible to perform the work* and will as a consequence lose their claims.
Write Your Congressman Now.
The Miner urges all Idaho citizens interested in the passage of this law to write to Representatives Burton L. French and Addison T. Smith and urge them to give the measure their active support. Citizens of other States should do likewise. Bring every pressure possible to get it through the House at the earliest date. It will probably pass the Senate without difficulty, as a similar law was passed by the Senate early in the year, only to die in the hands of the chairman of the House Committee on Mines and Mining. Write to-day.
Attitude Op Mining Association.
The Idaho Mining Association is making its influence felt in support of the bill for the suspension of assessment work. The association placed itself on record at the annual meeting last February in support of the bill then pending and is now urging the passage of one of the bills before the present House. The association represents every section of the State and its-attitude on this measure fairly reflects the sentiment of the mining interests of Idaho. What the association is doing is told in the following letter from Ra venal Macbeth, secretary:
"' conditions demand exemption.
Idaho Mining Association,
Boise, Idaho, June IS, 1919. To the Editor op the Miner:
Referring to article, "Assessment work on mining claims," that appeared in the Wallace Miner of the 26th, advise that the association has not only urgea Idaho's congressional delegation to support the resolutions exempting mining claims from assessment work for the year 1919, but has also urged Members from the western mining States and the members of the House Committee on Mines and Mining to support the resolution and has mailed them copies of the proceedings of the sixth annual convention of this association, inviting their attention to the resolution in reference thereto adopted at such sixth annual convention, and which is as follows: "Whereas those conditions which prompted Congress in passing a law exempting
owners of unpatented mining claims from performing the annual assessment work
for the years 1917 and 1918 still exists; and ' Whereas the individual and small mine owners are and have been more particularly
benefited by such a law, on account of the almost prohibitive cost of labor ana
supplies; and Wiereas these conditions are likely to exist during the balance of the ensuing year;
AtfOTJAI* ASSESSMENT WORK ON MINING CLAIMS. 37
"Whereas a like bill, exempting owners from performing the annual assessment work
on mining claims for the year 1919, has passed the United States Senate and is now
before the Committee on Mines and Mining in the lower House and is being
opposed by the chairman of said committee: Therefore, be it
"Resolved, That the Idaho Mining Association, in convention assembled, strongly
approves of the said measure and requests its representatives in the said lower House
to give it their earnest support, to the end that it may become a law."
Representative Addison T. Smith, under date of June 25, in reply to my wire of that date requesting him to advise me of the sentiment of the committee with respect to exempting mining claims from assessment work for the year 1919, advises me as follows:
" The sentiment of the committee has not yet been determined, but it is not unlikely that a bill exempting mining claims from assessment work for the year 1919 will be favorably reported.' '
Very truly, yours,
Ra venal Macbeth, Secretary,
[From the Wallace Miner, Wallace, Idaho, Thursday, June 26, 1919.] Assessment Work on Mining Claims.
exemption resolution should be passed— write congressmen — mining industry entitled to this concession — favor raker resolution.
Two resolutions have been introduced in the House providing for exemption of assessment work on mining claims. One of these was introduced by Representative Hawley, of Oregon, and provides that in order to take advantage of the provisions of the resolution, a claim owner must file with the county recorder of the county in which the claims are located on or before December 31, 1919, a notice that he desires to hold said mining claim in accordance with the provisions of the resolution. It is further provided that the resolution does not apply to oil placer locations or claims.
The other resolution was introduced by Representative Raker, of California. It is substantially the same as the Hawley resolution, with this important exception: It provides for the exemption from the requirements of annual assessment work on mining claims "during the war in which the United States is now engaged, and until midnight of December 31 of the year following that in which such war is concluded.' ' Provision is further made that the resolution shall not apply to any locations made after January 1, 1920.
Claim Owner Should Wait.
A letter to the Miner from Ravenal Macbeth, secretary of the Idaho Mining Association, with headquarters at Boise, states that he is receiving numerous inquiries from claim owners in various parts of the State regarding these exemption resolutions and the chances for their passage, which indicates that the sentiment is generally favorable to the enactment of one of them. Mr. Macbeth keeps in close touch with mining legislation that comes before Congress, and it is assumed that as secretary of the mining association he is using his influence to obtain this relief for owners of mining claims. Regarding the prospect for passing one of the resolutions, Mr. Macbeth says:
" Inasmuch as the House of Representatives declined to pass the resolution by Senator Henderson, of Nevada, that relieved claim owners from assessment work in 1919 which passed the Senate during the last session of Congress, I do not feel sanguine that the House will adopt either of these two resolutions, but would suggest that claim owners delay performing their assessment work until the House takes action."
Urge Quick Action.
To say that "the House of Representatives declined to pass the resolution" during the last session of Congress is hardly a correct statement of the case. The Henderson resolution passed the Senate, and upon being sent to the House it was referred to the Committee on Mines and Mining. Representative Foster, of Illinois, was chairman of that committee, and it soon developed that he was antagonistic to the resolution. He refused to report the resolution to the House, although urged to do so by friends of the measure, and Congress adjourned without the House having an opportunity to vote on the resolution. It is believed that the resolution would have passed if the House had been given an opportunity to vote upon it. It is now up to the mining interests of the West to make its influence felt in support of one of these resolutions.
38 Annual Assessment Wobk Of Justing Claims.
In this matter the Idaho Mining Association should take the lead by urging Idaho's congressional delegation to support the measure and by filing a strong indorsement of one of the resolutions with the House Committee on Mines and Mining.
Raker Resolution Best.
The Miner believes that the Raker resolution is the one that should receive the support of the mining interests. Under its provisions mining claims would be exempt from assessment work this year and in 1920, and the conditions prevailing in the mining districts entitle claim owners to this relief. The cost of doing assessment work now is just as high as it was during the war, and claim owners as a rule are less able to stand the expense. The mining industry has been particularly hard hit since the armistice was signed, and it is evident that much time will be required to restore normal conditions. Labor is high and hard to get at any price, while powder, provisions, and supplies of all kinds still command war prices or higher. Under these circumstances the miner should be relieved of the annual assessment burden this year and next, by which time business conditions will have become adjusted to a more equitable and permanent basis when the annual assessment work can be carried on without imposing a hardship upon claim owners. Congress should bear in mind that assessment work on mining claims is a requirement mainly for the purpose of showing good faith of claimants on public land and is comparatively unimportant so far as actual mineral development is concerned. The miners of the West are entitled to this concession as provided in the Raker resolution.
Mr. Raker. The same statement applies to an article from the same paper, dated July 10, 1919, which 1 will insert without reading. (The paper referred to follows:)
[From the Wallace Miner, Wallace, Idaho, Thursday, July 10, 1919.] Should Suspend Assessment Work.
miners op the west are entitled to relief — write congressman — conditions make passage op resolution matter op justice to miners.
There has never been a time when the necessity for exempting mining claims from annual assessment work was more urgent than it is this year, and every holder of unpatented mining claims, whether it be an individual or corporation, should do all he can to impress this fact upon some Member of Congress. Representatives from mining States will no doubt appreciate the importance of passing an exemption resolution, but they should be urged to use their influence with other Members who are not familiar with the mining industry and particularly the conditions that prevail in the mining districts of the West. If Congress understands this condition, there is no doubt that the desired relief will be forthcoming, and it is up to the people of the mining States to see that they are thoroughly informed. Many metal mines throughout the West are closed down and all others have curtailed their output on account of the depressed condition of the metal market. The situation is made worse by the shortage of labor to meet even the reduced requirements. The unsatisfactory condition of mining has necessarily had a corresponding effect upon business in the mining districts generally and upon all occupations dependent upon the operation of the mines. Add to these the high wages and the high prices of all material and supplies that enter into the performance of assessment work on mining claims, and the justice of the relief asked by the miners must be apparent. Under these circumstances the doing of annual assessment work this year and in all probability next year will prove a heavy burden upon all claim owners, and in many cases it may prove a positive impossibility, which will result in loss of claims which have been held for years through faithful compliance with the law.
Mining Association Active.
It is highly gratifying to know that the Idaho Mining Association is making its influence felt in support of the proposed exemption act. This organization is representative of the entire State, and its chief purpose is to present the views of the mining industry of Idaho in all matters of legislation in connection with mining. It has already accomplished much good in this respect, and in the present emergency its attitude should have much weight with Congressmen in determining their action on the exemption resolution. In this connection it would be of great help if the com-
Annual Assessment Wokk On Mining Claims. 39
mercia] bodies throughout the State would adopt resolutions favoring the exemption of mining claims from annual assessment and forward them to either Congressman- French or Smith.
Raker Resolution Favored.
From information received by the Miner, the sentiment of the people of this district is in the favor of the Raker resolution, which provides for the exemption of annual assessment work until December 31 of the year following the conclusion of peace r which means December 31, 1920. We are now in the last half of the year 1919, and while all are hopeful of improved business and mining conditions before the year is much further advanced, it must be admitted that there is little upon which to base the hope. Prices of all commodities seem to be advancing rather than receding. Metal prices have advanced, but the condition of the metal market does not suggest a return to a stable, normal condition. That prosperity for the mining industry will come back, there can be no doubt. The world must have the metals, but there are so many conflicting interests and conditions to be adjusted that it is not improbable that the readjustment may require a longer time than has been anticipated. In fact, it has taken longer already. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask that the exemption from assessment work shall include 1920. The miners did not fail the Government in war, and they onlv ask fair and just treatment at the hands of the Government while getting reestablished on a peace basis.
Mr. Robsion. How many years has this been suspended?
Mr. Raker. Two years (1917 and 1918) on account of the war.
Mr. Robsion. On account of the lack of labor, or what?
Mr. Raker. Both, labor, high cost of materials of every kind — picks, pick handles, steel, the drills, the forge, the coal, the grub stake— powder has been almost prohibitive, and canned vegetables, fruits, fiour, hay — when he takes nis horses up there or mules to do a little work, where he used to get hay for $10 or $12 a ton he now has to pay all the way from $60 to $100 a ton.
Mr. Robsion. That would mean less material and less labor then, in view of the fact that $100 is to be expended ?
Mr. Raker. Yes; the man don't want to throw his money away; he don't want to throw his time away; he wants to give his labor to something else — help his neighbor harvest his crops.
Mr. Robsion. Is this resolution based upon the same grounds that it was for 1917 and 1918? I mean is this relief sought on the same grounds as it was for 1917 or 191 S?
Mr. Raker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welling. It is a copy of the law absolutely.
Mr. Raker. The same ground, the same reasons. I have the resolution here.
Now, further, I want to call the attention of the committee that the resolution relieving them from assessment work for 1917 and 1918 is the law. Now, last year, September 2, 1918, this bill was sent over to the House and reported. This same resolution passed the Senate on July 27, 1918; came over to the House Committee on Mines and Mining, Union Calendar No. 252; Senate joint resolution 158, Report No. 866, and the House committee — this committee — reported it out unanimously, and it was placed on the calendar, and the only reason we did not pass it was that it was the last part of the session and you know we were just simply jammed with war legislation, and everyone was pressing for unanimous consent that they could not get, and that is the reason we did not get it through. It was done so that these people would know in advance that relief could be had. So w& are only asking this committee now to do just what they did last year on the same matter.
40 Annual Assessment Wokk On Mining Claims.
Mr. Robsion. What is the reason for this provision in the law in the first place ?
Mr. Raker. The assessment work?
Mr. Robsion. What was the reason, if any, that called for it?
Mr. Raker. Well, as I see it now and have read it from the law reports and the history of mining, they give you this right to go out and file upon a piece of Government land, mmeral land, designating the lode, if it was a lode, when you make the discovery. You must have made a discovery of rock in place bearing some mineral; then stake out a claim not exceeding 300 feet on either side of the place where you make the discovery, 1,500 feet long. That would give you a piece of land 600 feet wide and 1,500 feet long, and you were allowed to place the apex in the center of this location. Then you had to mark the boundaries, cut the brush away, put the stakes at the end and in the middle, put up rock monuments, put one in the center; post your notice where everyone can see it, write it out, put it up on one of the posts and file it in the recorder's office. ,
Mr. Taylor of Colorado. Will you permit me to ask you a question, there, Judge ?
Mr. Raker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor of Colorado. Why don't you answer him right straight ? He asked you ' ' What is the obj ect of this assessment law ? ' '
Mr. Raker. Now, I want to answer his question, Mr. Taylor, and I .am making it reasonably plain. This is to De given to him; it is to be his land, his title, and the Government says to him: 'To show your good faith and that you have discovered something, so that you can not say, when you have simply broken out a piece of rock here, or pannea out some dirt and found a little trace of gold, that you have made a discovery. You must go in there every year and put in $100 worth of work on this claim." He can put in $5,000 worth if he wants to, but to show his good faith he must spend at least $100 a year for five years, or $500 before he makes application for patent.
Mr. Robsion. Now, Judge Raker, after two years of this legislation, has it been good or bad ?
Mr. Raker. It has been absolutely good, and there hasn't been a word of complaint from any place or from anyone in the United States.
Mr. Robsion. I know; but the question may arise as to whether or not it tends to allow certain persons to grab up large tracts of territory.
Mr. Kaker. It does not; it has not, and it will not under any circumstances nor in any way.
Mr. Rhodes. You say it has not had that effect. Why has it not tended to enlarge claim grabbing ?
Mr. Raker. There isn't any grabbing in this; this is the most legitimate business in the world. The highest class men in the world are giving the best part of their lives for this country in this work, and there is no class of men that bear a better reputation in honor and in integrity and in their labor than the mining men of the West.
Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, may I say that my question was not grounded upon any desire to impute improper motives, but upon the desire to obtain information, and I want to know what there is to prevent the grabbing up of a large number of claims, if it might be so desired.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 41
Mr. Raker. Well, the general disposition of honesty in men, that he knows that he can not comply with the law in making the assessment work. It costs a lot of money to locate, to find the claim, to mark the boundaries, to post your notices, and to record it. It costs $1,50 to $2 for recording, and you have got to give your written notice. Now, to do that 100 times and then to do your assessment work each year — there isn't any inducement for it; there is no occasion for it, and it doesn't work that way. This land has been open since the country was discovered out there, and there are no men that have "hogged" or have gobbled up much mining land.
Mr. Robsion. Has there been any complaint during the two years that the law has been in operation ?
Mr. Raker. There hasn't been, to my observation, one single complaint. Now, if anyone else has heard of any, I don't know. Have you heard any complaint at all, Mr. Callbreatn ?
Mr. J. F. Callbreath. No.
Mr. Raker. Mr. Callbreath knows more than anyone else here about that, and I say that from inquiry and observation my people tell me that it has worked splendidly, and if they can get another year, until war conditions are settled, it will not be needed any longer.
Mr. Howard. Judge Raker, may I ask you a question ? I notice that all the correspondence you have read relative to this matter, asking for it, is from those who are interested in these claims. Have you any information that you could give the committee as to the ieeling of the laboring people who would be employed upon this work, and the merchants and the business men in these communities who would naturally receive benefits from labor being employed there and the money spent ? What do they say about tfhis ?
Mr. Raker. I can only answer that in this way: In the first place, most of these men have been individual men doing their own work, ex6ept where there have been a number of claims, like this Kennett Mining Co., and there he states that they had to shut down the mine because they couldn't get the men to do the actual mining work. There is machinery that is worth possibly $5,000,000 closed down because they couldn't get the men. Now, the people that are around the small villages and places are not, so far as my country is concerned — those people have not complained because the miner doesn't develop them when they know it will be no advantage to him or anyone else; and I believe, from the publicity given to this matter, that the communities, the grocer, the blacksmith — everybody — is in favor of these miners receiving this concession for this year.
Mr. Robsion. Judge Raker, is it the disposition to continue this indefinitely ?
Mr. Raker. No, sir; just for this year. The war will be practically over then; it is not over yet, you know.
Mr. Robsion. You have no purpose of asking it for next year ?
Mr. Raker. No; just this year.
The Chairman. I wanted to ask you what your idea is about the oil claims. Isn't that almost exactly similar so far as assessment work is concerned and so far as the right to the claim goes ?
Mr. Raker. The only way to answer that question is to answer it as you understand it, and to answer your question as I honestly see the situation as it applies to placer oil claims, I would say yes it ought to apply to the oil claims. It was knocked out by the com-
42 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
mittee, by those who were directly interested, and I said, "If you desire it to go out, of course I can't stand in your way."
Mr. Taylor. But they changed their minds pretty soon afterwards.
Mr. Raker. Every one of them; yes.
Mr. Taylor. And they were very anxious to get it put back.
The Chairman. Has there been anything done in the Public Lands Committee with reference to exempting the man that takes up land — agricultural land ?
Mr. Raker. With an extension you mean ?
The Chairman. Ye3.
Mr. Raker. Oh yes; you know during the war
The Chairman (interposing). I know it was during the war.
Mr. Raker. Well, it isn't necessary. That has been disposed of now. The homesteader has had relief.
Mr. Welling. The soldier homesteader ?
Mr. Raker. Yes.
Mr. Welling. That is all.
Mr. Raker. Well, that is all that needed it.
The Chairman. This is not for soldiers only; this applies to civilians also. I mean did they do anything for the civilian agriculturist ?
Mr. Kinkaid. Just a moment there u you will pardon me at tunes they do; several times we have given homesteaders permission to be absent from their claims.
Mr. Raker. Oh yes; many times.
Mr. Kinkaid. They have relieved them for a year or two years on account of drought, on account of grasshoppers, and on account of other conditions.
The Chairman. Have they been relieved now in anv wav — those civilians ?
Mr. Raker. Because of the war ?
The Chairman. Those homesteaders on account of the drought and because of the war, too ?
Mr. Kinkaid. They ought to be relieved because of the drought. There ought to be relief right now in Montana and Wyoming on account of the drought. They are starving out there.
The Chairman. There has been no legislation, however, to that effect — at least I haven't been able to find it.
Mr. Taylor. There is nothing of that kind now excepting for the soldiers.
Mr. Howard. I understand that that is a rider that the Senate has put on to the present agricultural bill.
Mr. Kinkaid. I did not know that. I knew the necessity existed* I know that.
Mr. Howard. It has been put on now, and the bill comes over today to the House for consideration to relieve these homesteaders.
Mr. Kinkaid. The relief ought to be granted.
The Chairman. I am glad to hear that. I was looking it up and could not find anything.
Mr. Raker. Now Mr. Chairman I made myself plain about that oil business, didn't I ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Parrish. If I may ask one question Judge Raker, what reasons were given at the time for not allowing the oil men the same rights a& others ?
Ankual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims. 43
Mr. Raker. This bill was reported out, giving the oil men relief, all of them, but when it got on the floor of the House Mr. Mondell — we didn't want to have any trouble with it and we wanted to get it up by unanimous consent — my recollection is that Mr. Mondell said that there would be no objection if we would consent to strike out the oil claim, in other words, not to exempt those who had oil claims, and we knew that Mr. Mondell came from Wyoming where there was more real oil development in the way of claims on public lands than any other State in the United States at that time — Mr. Taylor's State has developed a great many within the last year because the oil shale has come in — and we simply had to throw our hands up because we said: "The man representing the State where this work is being done don't want it, but we know the law ought to apply to the rest of the mining country." So we permitted ,that, and when it came to a vote Mr. Mondell offered an amendment striking out oil claims, and it was carried, but within three weeks afterwards, from Wyoming and every place they were on top of Mr. Mondell, just giving him Hail Columbia because it did not go through — and I thought justly.
Mr. Taylor. He introduced a bill then to try and put it in.
Mr. Raker. Yes; I have it here now, House joint resolution 269, March 27, 1918, introduced by Mr. Mondell, and of course, it was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, but it never got through.
Now I think I have covered everything, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, and I hope you may see your way clear to report this bill.
The Chairman. We will hear you now, Mr. French.
STATEMENT OF HON. BURTON 1. FRENCH, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO.
Mr. French. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that which I have in mind to say is so in harmonv with that which has been said by those who appeared in support oi this bill day before yesterday, and also this morning, that I am going to boil my remarks down and will confine myself almost to the five-minute rule.
I shall also omit statements from Ra venal Macbeth, of the Idaho Mining Association, and editorials from the Wallace Miner, and other statements, as Mr. Raker has included the same in his remarks.
As the committee knows, this proposed bill applies to our mining States. If any section of the country suffers it is the section that includes the mining regions; if any section is benefited, it is our section. As I see it, the rest of the country can not have any great concern or interest in the legislation, other than in attempting to do something which will be helpful and beneficial to the States that are the mining States.
The bill proposes to waive for the present year the assessment work on mining claim locations. I don't want to say anything with regard to the oil feature, because we do not have enough interest in my State in that phase of it for me to speak advisedly, so I will confine what I shall say to the other features.
There are several reasons why it seems to me advisable that this bill should be passed. Not altogether do I rest upon the reasons that were advanced as to conditions that existed while our boys
44 Annual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims.
were overseas. At that time existed some of the reasons, shortage of labor, and all that, but there were special reasons — that is, our boys were overseas and they must, 01 course, be protected. It seems, though, that with that exception, the reasons that obtained for two years obtain now.
The first reason is there is a shortage of labor in my State and in the adjoining State where this bill will apply, and it is very difficult to obtain labor to do this assessment work at any price.
Mr. Welling. Of course you understand, Mr. French, that this bill never was introduced, or the bill that preceded this, never was introduced to protect the soldier or the sailor.
Mr. French. Oh, no, we had special legislation for their protection.
Mr. Burke. Pardon me there, Mr. French, how many soldiers and sailors in the Army own mining claims ? Have you any idea ?
Mr. French. No ; I have no idea. I have no way of getting at that, and as I say, this does not rest upon that consideration at all.
The first consideration then that I wanted to call to the attention of the committee is this: There is at this time a great shortage of labor that is available for this kind of work.
The second consideration is this: The price of labor is very high.
Couple that then with the third consideration that the prices of material, of powder, of supplies for the men who would do assessment work are also very hign. Merge those two considerations, the high price of labor and the high price of powder and supplies, into one other consideration, and that is this: The amount 01 work that you can accomplish for $100 on each claim, and you have something that ought to appeal to the members of this committee. The law
?provides that there shall be $100 worth of assessment work done. l he owners of the claims do not object to doing $100 worth of assessment work providing they can have $100 worth of real work, not measured in dollars, but measured in the work accomplished on the claim. The owner of a claim hesitates to go upon the claim and do about $30 or $50 worth of work, measured by work accomplished, but measured by dollars and cents, $100 worth of work and say that is the assessment work for the year 1919.
It seems to me that from the standpoint thto of economy, of labor, and for the advancement of the work to be done by the owner of the claim, that it is advisable to postpone this work for another year.
In that connection this consideration is important, that this is merely a postponement; it does not mean that this $100 worth of work is waived or credited to the person who is the owner of the claim; it simply means that if he doesn't perform it in 1919 it is postponed until 1930 and in succeeding years until he shall make nis proof. In other words, the loss is upon him, it is upon the States, if there is a loss; the advantages are to him or to the State, if there is an advantage. I believe it is an advantage to him to postpone it when he can get the minimum of results only for the expenditure of money for labor and supplies, until a time when he can get a reasonable result for the expenditure of money for labor and supplies.
Mr. Burke. Suppose, then, the same conditions prevailed next year, would you come back next year and ask to have it extended again, if labor and wages were high and material was high?
Mr. French. Of course, I can see this, There might come a time when the average purchasing power of the dollar would be con-
Annual, Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims. 45
siderably more than it has been. I think conditions will be more nearly normal, at any rate, I don't believe we ought to meet that question until next year. If it would seem in another year that the purchasing price of a dollar had so changed from what it has been ior years past that it would purchase less, why, then possibly the very reasons that I urge now would not apply then, especially if it seemed that there was to be a continuation of that value of the dollar.
Mr. Burke. But is it not a fact that right at the present day things are soaring higher and higher?
Mr. French. Right now in many lines they are unquestionably, and for that reason it does seem to me advisable that we ought not to require $30 or $50 worth of work to be performed on a claim in lieu of $100 worth of work. It satisfies the law, but it is not, as a matter of fact, $100 worth of work such as we had in mind when we required that that amount of work should be done on a claim per year in order to show good faith on the part of the owner of the claim.
Mr. Burke. That would be all right if you were sure that wages were going to be less next year, and material cheaper. That is all right, but I can't see any good reason for continually postponing.
The Chairman. This only applies to this year.
Mr. Robsion. I would like to ask you a question there, Mr. French. What State are you from ?
Mr. French. Idaho is my State.
Mr. Robsion. Under the practical operation of this bill for two years, has it had any tendency to centralize these lands in the hands of a few persons? I mean have they gathered up great numbers of claims, or anything like that ?
Mr. French. I would say that I have not been advised of any such condition as that at all. The conditions set forth by Mr. Taylor as prevailing in Colorado I am not aware that they prevail in my State at all. Every letter that I have had, every telegram that I have had, every newspaper clipping that I have had, all agree in the one thought that for Idaho it is advisable that this legislation be passed.
Mr. Robsion. Now, any new claims that would be located this year, this law would not afreet them anyhow, would it ?
Mr. French. No; it would not affect any claim filed this year.
Mr. Robsion. So the new claims, we would have to give them relief next year in order to benefit any fellows that filed claims this year ?
Mr. French. Yes; and it seems to me that with that condition the probability of relief being granted along this same line next year is so remote that no one would attempt this year to file a claim in order to get the advantage of a prospective law next year.
Mr. Burke. The reason I asked the question was that my State has issued half a million dollars' worth ot bonds to build more roads, to fix roads in the State, for the purpose of furnishing employment for labor. Now, this statement is contrary to that ; they want this law to exempt these claims, as I understand it, because the labor is scarce, while the tendency of the State and the municipality in my State is to issue bonds to enable them to furnish more money for the employment of labor. And I want to say to you that in the city of Pittsburgh, I think, we have got 25,000 idle men walking the streets there now.
46 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. French. Of course, it is more than 2,000 miles from the gentleman's district to my district, and in fact to a large part of the section of country where this bill would operate, and the question of travel is a big item for men who would be employed in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Burke. The object is to report out this bill because wages are high and materials are high, and I don't think that is reasonable.
Mr. French. There ought to be coupled with the gentleman's statement the question of labor being scarce, and there ought to then be coupled with it also another consideration that I have ilot mentioned, and that is this: We need in the harvest fields, we need in the orchard regions, and in the other kinds of employment all the labor that now is in our western country, and there ought not to be there this unnecessary pulling away of labor from these necessary lines into a line where the fruits of that labor will be so low as to amount to possibly only 30 or 35 per cent in value to the owner of the mine, as is the case this year.
Mr. Burke. In answer to that, we have probably that same condition, and there are probably 25,000 laboring men walking the streets of Pittsburgh to-day that if they cared to go out on the farm for $2 a day and pay $1.75 for board in the community they could secure employment.
Mr. Rhodes. Mr. French, I desire to ask a question of you.
In your opinion, was the mining industry stimulated because of the exemption of this $100 assessment during the previous year?
Mr. French. Oh, that could not stimulate it; no.
Mr. Rhodes. Then, will the exemption of this $100 assessment charge, in your opinion, in any way stimulate or retard the mining industry ?
Mr. French. Well, it could not stimulate it. We are not asking that it be stimulated under this bill; we are simply contending that it is to relieve an injustice being imposed upon the owner of the claim. I do think this, Mr. Rohdes, that in a sense it is a drag upon the owner of a mining claim to have $30 or $35 worth of work performed on his claim in the name of $100 worth, simply because that amount of work now at the prices will satisfy the law, while at the same time it does not dig a tunnel on his claim, and in another year probably, if things swing back to normal, there would be three times the amount of labor performed for the same amount of money.
Mr. Rhodes. Then, Mr. French, if the exemption of this $100 assessment in no wise affects the industry, then who receives the benefits arising from the continued exemption from the law?
Mr. French. The continued exemption ?
Mr. Rhodes. Yes.
Mr. French. We are merely asking for exemption for this year.
Mr. Rhodes. I say, who is to be benefited, the public at large, or the individual owner of the claim?
Mr. French. Well, first of all the individual owner of the claim will be benefited. It is hardly fair to him to ask that he do assessment work measured by dollars when he will only obtain a small amount of results. The others that will be benefited will be the public at large who acre needing the labor in other lines.
Mr. Rhodes. About how much is a man required to invest ifiotder to become the owner of one of these claims?
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 47
Mr. French. Well, he is required to do $100 worth of work for each of five consecutive years to become the owner of the claim, or he can bunch that work and shorten the time. He can do it all in two years or all in one year.
Mr. Rhodes. And there is no limit to the number of claims, as I undeitand it, that one man can hold ?
Mr. French. No.
Mr. Rhodes. But he is required to spend at least this sum of money in order to become the owner of the claim ?
Mr. French. Yes.
Mr. Raker. In addition to that, you ought to state, Mr. French, that he has got to get a United States surveyor to survey it. It will cost him all the way from $100 to $300 to get the preliminary work done before he can get to the land office.
Mr. French. Yes; that is true. I was speaking of development work only.
Mr. Robsion. Now this $100 that would be expended in the year, say this year, would it be any substantial benefit to the claim or anybody else to have that amount of money spent there ?
Mr. French. Two-thirds of it would not, because two-thirds of it represents the amount that is paid for the excessive price — because of the excessive price of labor and materials.
Mr. Robsion. That is just to show his good faith that he is going to develop, isn't it?
Mr. French. Of course, if you insist that the law shall not be extended, all that it does — not all, but the main thing that it does — is to have him do work that will insure his good faith, but in addition to that, you give him a credit for a very small amount of actual results and let him oe to the expense of three times its worth in order to accomplish it.
Mr. Kobsion. The amount is so small and the price of material and labor so high that it amounts to practically nothing, so far as benefiting the claim is concerned ?
Mr. French. Well, there would be mighty slow development work on claims if for the expenditure of a dollar normally you would merely get a third as much work as we have been getting normally, on account of prices of labor and material.
There is another thought that I would like to call to the attention of the committee and that is this: If this act shall be passed, it should be passed now, for the reason that we are now in the midst of the harvest; we don't want to have the men drawn from the harvest fields now, and we ought to provide a condition that will be stable, that the mining men can rely upon and feel secure in, and as long as the legislation is uncertain, the owners of these claims are trying to comply with the law, and they will try to do so. To some extent men will be drawn in to do this work, even under the disadvantageous conditions.
Again, to do assessment work now would mean to draw men from active mines — mines that are producing — and this should not be done
It seems to me, then, thoroughly advisable that we should pass the law and pass it now, so that the owners of these claims may know at the earliest moment that for this year they will not be required to do this assessment work. Now, unless there is some further question,
48 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
I think that the statements that have been made by others have pretty fully covered the ground. ,
Mr. Parrish. I would like to ask you about how many men, as near as you can estimate it, in your State would be involved by the passage of this resolution — or affected— -approximately ?
Mr. French. I don't believe I could even approximate. There are no definite records outside each particular county.
Mr. Smith of Idaho. About 2,500.
Mr. French. I would think not less than that.
Mr. Welling. You mean that there would be 2,500 claims? Of course a great many more people than that would be affected indirectly.
Mr. French. Yes; I wouldn't want to leave any definite figure, or even an approximate figure. There are many claims and the demand for the legislation is coming from numerous counties, all the mining counties, and, as I said, the sentiment everywhere is overwhelmingly for it.
Mr. Parrish. What I want to get at, Mr. French, was to find out, if I could, approximately how many claims you had and approximately how many men you had, so that we might get some estimate of the number of claims to each man as applied to your State.
Mr. French. I don't believe I could give an estimate on that, but I would say this, that I don't believe there are any great claim hogs there, because if there were we would have heard something about it.
Mr. Rhodes. Just one more question in that connection — you say, Mr. French, that there are no claim hogs there or you would have known something about it ?
Mr. French. I think we would have seen it discussed and had letters pointing out that fact.
Mr. Rhodes. Do you say that the claim hog does prevail in that State, or that he does not?
Mr. French. No; I say generally speaking, he does not.
Mr. Rhodes. Then are these claims held largely by bona fide settlers of the State ?
Mr. French. Well, I think, for the most part, they are.
Mr. Rhodes. Then your opinion is that there isn't a large number of claims held by speculators ?
Mr. French. No ; I am confident that criticism would not apply
Mr. Rhodes (interposing). It is not a criticism; I am seeking information.
Mr. French. I didn't mean criticism in any invidious way; I mean I don't think that-observation would apply to my State.
Mr. Rhodes. You think there are bona fide claimants who seek this relief ?
Mr. French. I think so. Of course you can say any miner, any prospector, to some extent, is a speculator. He is staking all that ne has in this world upon that which no man can know exists in the ground. There is that hazard. That being the case, we ought to see to it that those men are permitted to get a dollar's worth of results for a dollar's worth of money.
Mr. Rhodes. One further observation. I understand that you hve referred to that speculative proposition in a very limited sense ; I was speaking of it in the sense that one man sometimes seeks to acquire a large number of claims.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 49
Mr. French. I would say that in my judgment that is not any general condition at all in the State, and ii it is true it is so rare that it has never even been mentioned in a letter to me. I would like to ask my colleague if it has ever been mentioned to him, that that condition exists in Idaho.
Mr. Smith of Idaho. I don't think so. Of course, mining is a- gamble. Everybody knows that, that knows anything at all. The man puts his money in, and he doesn't know whether ne is going to get anything out or not. That is one reason why I think it would be more lair for these claimants than to do something for the homestead entryman or the desert entryman, who has got something on the surface to start with.
Mr. Howard. One other question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. French, what assurance have we — we have, so to speak, already remitted two years of this assessment work; now if we make another, that will be three years out of five years remitted — what assurance have we that at the end of the next two years, when a man's time has expired for him to get a patent, that then the claim would not be set up that we have remitted to him this $100 per year by reason of war conditions, and that that will be an excuse to let him avoid carrying out the spirit of this law that he shall spend $500 on this, and get away with spending $200, say, or $300? What assurance have we that that thing will not be presented to this committee and this Congress in future ? Now it has been done in other instances.
Mr. French. The main assurance is that you hold the whip hand, and the legislation in the past does not give that; it merely postpones the time that the work shall be done, and it would require an act of Congress in order to bring such a condition as that about.
Mr. Howard. I know we have had that condition in the case of the free homes out in Oklahoma. After they were to pay so much they asked for an exemption and that was done, and then afterwards they came in — and justly too — and through influence brought to bear on Congress they were permitted to get credit for that exemption. Now this same condition may occur in a year or two when they find it necessary to open up these claims, to make that claim and to avoid spending this money that they should spend on these claims in accordance with this law.
Mr. French. I don't think there could be any parallel drawn that Congress would listen to for one second. In the homestead law these homesteaders were compared with the homesteaders all over the public domain who did not have to pay for their homesteads, and for that reason it seemed to Congress at that time that possibly it was fair to let the Oklahoma settlers have the same rights. But there could be no parallel drawn here.
Mr. Howard. But you understand that while it may not be parallel, it is always possible that influence can be brought upon Congress in the name of the poor downtrodden claim holder or mining placer holder that this was equitable and just to let him proceed; that by reason of the war he was tied up and could not do so, and that might be continued until the time had run out.
Mr. Kinkaid. Let me say just a word there in answer to that- There is no precedent of that kind, and you will find as you go along with your experience here in legislation that precedence is a verjr
50 Annual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims.
important feature. It is a great advantage to have a precedent in favor of a bill you introduce, and it is a very great obstacle to have no precedent in its favor at all. Now, there has never been a demand for anything of this kind by miners. Miners have never even sought to be exempted from compliance with the requirements of the law, but they have frequently asked to have the time prolonged. Now, Mr. Howard, you have suggested about the time running out. The time does not run out; it runs for 20 years if they keep doing assessment work. You don't have to secure your patent ever; you can go on and develop your claims and do the assessment work each year and run it for 20 years and operate it without getting a patent, without making that tedious and expensive survey — very expensive survey and a tedious survey. You can let it go on, but before you can secure a patent you must comply with the law, and there isn't a single instance where there has ever been exemption — exemption is not the proper term here, because there has never been an exemption from compliance with the law. They never have baen exempted.
Mr. French. Let me make this suggestion also to Mr. Howard. I think the West itself would be the very first part of this country to resent any such proposed law as that. We want our mining claims developed : we want the mining regions developed, and we are in favor of granting relief to the mining prospector, but relief that merely postpones the time when he may do his work, but that does not relieve him of doing that actual assessment work which is necessary to the finding out of whether or not there is mineral wealth in his claim.
Mr. Howard. Let me state that I may perhaps vote for reporting this bill out favorably; but right here I wanted to establish a precedent to forestall any such action as might possibly come to us within the next year to remit this assessment work by some claims that might be raised at that time.
Mr. French. I hope it will never even be raised, and I do not believe it will, and the West itself would be the first to resent it, in my judgment.
Mr. Burke. I am asking for information, because I am in the same position that Mr. Howard is; I may vote to put this bill out, but I want to know first if this request comes from the fellow that goes right out with his pack on his back and does find the spot and spends his $ 1 .25 to have his notice recorded, or does it come from the man that owns hundreds of claims and is sitting probably in New York or Pittsburgh with plenty of money behind him to purchase this material and this labor for the development of this country.
Mr. Raker. Here is a sample from my country [indicating letter]. This is a letter from a horny-handed miner, and here is the declaration in his letter. Read it.
Mr. French. Well, Mr. Burke, I think so far as that is concerned, that everybody who owns a claim is in favor of it. Now, if there are those that you suggest, who own a good many claims, I have no doubt they woula be in favor of it too; but I am satisfied that the others are in favor of it.
Mr. Burke. I want to ask you, then, who is in the majority, the individual owner, the fellow that goes in with the, pack on his back, or the other fellow that is sitting in his office with plenty of money behind him ? Which is it ?
A28Tnual Assessmekt Work On Mining Claims. 51
Mr. Fbench. I would say that in my State the ones are in the majority who are bona fide residents of the State, and who either themselves are doing the work or through others are developing mining claims.
The Chairman. Gentlemen, it is nearly 12 o'clock
Mr. Burke (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I have got to vote on this biQ, and I want some information on it.
The Chairman. Well, there will be more hearings. Some of the gentlemen of the committee desire to be on the floor when the session opens, and I think we had better adjourn now and have a meeting tD-morrow morning, if that is satisfactory to the committee. Judge Webster from Washington desires to be heard and Mr. Callbreath and Mr. Lawrie, both from the American Mining Congress. We will adjourn until to-morrow morning at half-past 10.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the committee adjourned until 10.30 o'clock a. m., Friday, July 25, 1919.)
Committee on Mines and Mining,
House of Representatives,
Friday, July 25, 1919.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Mahlon M. Garland (chairman) presiding.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Proceed, Mr. Mondell.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING.
Mr. Mondell. Mr. Chairman, you are considering, as I understand it, House joint resolution 150, which proposes to relieve claimants of mining claims from the necessity of performing assessment work in the sum of $100 for each claim during the calendar year 1919, except oil placer claims. We have exempted holders of mining claims from the necessity of doing assessment work during the calendar years 1917 and 1918, I believe?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Mondell. And the law still remains on the statute book for the present year so far as men in the military service are concerned. Now the question is, Should we extend this release from the necessity of performing assessment work in the year 1919, making three calendar years during which such relief has been granted or would have been granted to the ordinary holder of a mining claim ?
There are two general classes of mining claims, lode claims and
Elacer claims. The performance of assessment work falls mo$t easily upon the locator of the lode claim — at least so far as the requirement affects the area held is concerned ; for the locator of a lode claim must do his assessment work on every lode claim, whereas the locators of placer claims may consolidate their claims and form combinations of eight claims of 20 acres each, and perform the assessment work on the combined claim.
The ordinary lode claim is something less than 20 acres; the placer claim is 20 acres, but by combination the placer claimant may perform $100 worth of work for a 160-acre claim location.
52 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
The requirement of assessment work in the law is for the purpose of compelling a continual showing of good faith and a certain continuous expenditure in order to render it impossible to continuously and for a great period of time retain control over lands located without making any expenditure in connection with them. There is no limit to the area that an individual may locate under the mining law.
Mr. Rhodes. Just a moment there — will the gentleman permit this question ?
Mr. Mondell. I will amplify that, and perhaps answer your question.
While the individual claim is small — 2,500 feet along the lode in the case of a lode claim, and 20 acres in the case of a placer claim, there is no limit to the number of claims that an individual may locate. He may locate any number of such claims and hold them and patent them. An association of eight can only locate one combination placer claim, but the same association may locate an indefinite number — an unlimited number of such combination claims. Is that what the gentleman had in mind ?
Mr. Rhodes. That is the point I was making.
Mr. Mondell. It has frequently been urged by those who do not understand the workings of the mining laws that these provisions are all together too liberal; that they enable individuals or combinations of individuals to locate and hold indefinitely, through the performance of assessment work, very great areas; and one not familiar with the workings of the mining laws and the conditions in the area in which mining claims are located might be persuaded that such is the case, that the law is altogether too liberal, but a long experience has proven that while the requirement of a discovery and of .the amount of work in connection with the discovery is not particularly onerous, and while the requirement of $100 per claim of expenditure is not particularly onerous; nevertheless the fulfillment of these requirements and of the additional requirements as they may be ana frequently are provided by local organizations, are such that if the provisions of the law remain in force, men are not able ordinarily to hold permanently large areas, and that the requirement of $500 worth of work before patent, in connection with these other provisions, are such that in very few instances do single individuals or associations secure any very great area of mineral land.
The question is constantly arising as to the propriety of the requirement of $100 worth of work per annum on a claim. It is known of all men who have knowledge of the situation in the mining regions that very frequently — possibly in the majority of cases, and more particularly on placer claims — the work performed as assessment work is questionable in its value in the actual development of the mineral resources of the claim, and yet no one has been able to figure out — no one has proposed any acceptable substitute. The assessment work very frequently does not develop the claim, but it is a requirement that evidences, at least to a certain extent, good faith, and that necessitates expenditure, which prevents the long continued holding of great areas without actual development.
There are always men who want to be relieved from the necessity of doing assessment work. Very frequently they are men holding very large areas and who are the last people entitled to that character of consideration. Unusual conditions hae arisen from time
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 53
to time in the mining regions, however, which have justified relief — conditions of very unusual drought, affecting greatly the situation in the country; unusually severe winters, conditions of excessive labor shortage, conditions of war
Mr. Mondell. The panic condition of 1893, the gentleman from Colorado reminds me.
Mr. Rhodes. Does the labor shortage condition prevail to-day in your section ?
Mr. Mondell. I am going into that question, Mr. Rhodes.
The relief which has been granted for the past two years was granted primarily, if I recall, to the men in the military service. That was wise and proper and should continue as long as men are in the service, in war. Of course, it should not continue indefinitely to men who remain in the military service as a profession. It was extended beyond the men in the military service on the theory that the heavy draft on the labor of the mining sections for military service, and for work of a military character, was such as rendered such relief wise and just and equitable. The question now is shall we continue that relief, which has been going on for two years ?
I am in a singularly fortunate position with regard to this matter at this time, in that I have had no communications from my people one way or the other in regard to this matter. I am, however, familiar with mining operations. At one time and another, in my youth, I held many mining claims and worked them industriously; unfortunately, in no case with any considerable return — which, by the way, is the usual and ordinary experience of mankind in matters of this sort.
Mr. French. Could you get out the money year by year that you put in in doing that assessment work, when you abandoned your claim?
Mr. Mondell. I never got any money of any kind out of any of them.
Mr. French. That is an important point.
Mr. Mondell. But that was not an unusual experience.
Mr. Rhodes. In fact, it was probably what you expected ?
Mr. Mondell. Well, it was not altogether what I expected, because at times, like all other prospectors and locators, I had dreams, colored with great expectations, and I frequently sat around the camp fire in the chilly evenings before reluctantly retiring to the questionable comfort of a very thin pair of damp blankets, consoled and buoyed up and temporarily heartened by the hope and expectation that, thank God, always gladdens the heart of the prospector — if it didn't we wouldn't have many mines.
Now, the question is, have we conditions that warrant the continuance of this relief ? Frankly, I do not think the conditions are such as to warrant it. For two years men have been able to hold claims without doing any work upon them, without doing more than filing the ordinary notice, which costs about $2.50 in the case of each claim. The soldiers are returning; we are hoping for a return to normal along all lines; we are hoping for a revival of industry, and I doubt if we can secure it by allowing men who have been holding claims — other than men in the military service who have been holding claims — to continue to hold them without effort or expenditure.
54 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WOKK ON MTNTNG CLAl'MS.
In certain sections of the West very great areas have been located under the placer act, either in combination claims — oil shale. My understanding is that the exception from the relief for the last two
{rears of oil placers has not been considered to apply to oil shale ocations. There are very large areas of such shales held by single individuals — or rather by combinations of individuals, because in a great majority of cases they are held in the form of the combined entry. It is not wise to so tie up the potential wealth of the mining country, and it should not be done a single day beyond the time when conditions unquestionably warrant it. It is true there is still a shortage of labor in that section, but in my opinion that shortage is not of an extent or a character warranting the Congress in allowing men to further continue to hold these areas without doing something on them.
Congress did not apply the relief of the past two years to oil placers, and for very excellent reasons, and yet, from certain viewpoints there is really more of an argument for relief from the doing of assessment work in the case of oil placers than in the case of lodes, and one of the reasons is that the ordinary assessment work on an oil placer is not in one case in a hundred of any value in the development of the claim. It is most likely to be valuable in the case of a lode claim, where any shafting or drifting may develop the presence of mineral or uncover ore bodies.
We ought to get back to normal as soon as we can ; we ousrht not to allow extensive holdings of mineral areas without some evidence of good faith — some expenditure. Where there is a shortage of labor, men stand ready, I am sure, to locate in the case of those claims where the present locators find they can not spend the sum required by the law. And let me say this in that connection, that the local custom justifies a man placing a very good figure on his own work in connection with assessment work on a mining claim, and that the real prospector, the man whose business it is to prospect and develop, and who makes that his business, may legitimately and with the approval of public opinion — and I think in the case of controversy, of the courts — figure his day's labor at a very considerable sum. So that the assessment work on a single claim is not particularly burdensome.
Mr. Robsion. I would like to ask a question, if you will permit it. At what figure would you fix the wages ?
Mr. Mondell. Well, I don't know that I would want to fix a figure, but I am sure that if a man figured that he did good work and figured his work at $10 a day, I am sure no one could question it. I am not so sure that it would be questioned if he figured his day's work, the long day's work that men do frequently in that class of work, where there are no union rules, at more than that.
Mr. Welling. It might very reasonably be more if, as in some portions of the West to-day, he had to pay $60 a ton for a little bit of hay to take up with him for his burro.
Mr. Mondell. That is true. I think he would be justified in putting — these same men, if they are miners engaged in ordinary mining operations get very good wages, and when you take the added cost of transportation to the somewhat distant locations of the mining claims and the difficulties of reaching them; the cost of transporting tools, provisions and supplies — when you take all that into consideration, men are justified in figuring their day's work in doing assessment work at a pretty liberal figure.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 55?
I would not appear before you, gentlemen, in opposition to a measure which is approved by quite a number of western people if I did not feel that we had reached the time when notwithstanding v the request of certain people — I am inclined to think largely people holding large areas — possibly the perfectly legitimate request of small holders in certain areas where the difficulties are unusual — if I did not feel that, take the country as a whole and the west as a whole and the mining industry as a whole and the prospectors as a whole, we were not justified in further continuing a condition of absolute stagnation with regard to the claims that are held under the mining law; stagnation produced by relief from all assessment work. Of course gentlemen will say that there is not a condition of stagnation; that many men are doing work. Well, in that event they do not need to be relieved, but so far as this law applies it produces a condition of stagnation, because the man that does any work on his claim, that appliesto assessment work, if it is work for the development of the claim, and the courts have held very liberally in that regard.
Mr. Taylor. And it applies on his patent, too.
Mr. Mondell. Of course the assessment work, the work done as assessment work, applies and is credited in the $500 worth of work required to be done before patent is issued.
Mr. Welling. 1 want to ask you two questions, Mr. Mondell, if T may, at the proper time.
Mr. Mondell. I have a meeting which I must attend, and if the gentleman will ask the questions now I will be glad to answer them.
Mr. Welling. I want to ask you if you think that this committee or that the Congress has the right, in case of some such measure of this kind being enacted, that they have a right to limit the number of claims which can be exempted ? Would they have the right to say that no one man should ask exemption for more than two or three or five claims?
Mr. Mondell. Yes, right off hand and without giving the matter much consideration, I should think you would be justified in that.
Mr. Welling. Now, referring to the bill
Mr. Mondell (interposing). Although I am expressing no opinion as to the wisdom of a provision of that kind.
Mr. Welling. Referring to the bill, on page 2, if this legislation must be continued and reenacted, what would you say about the advisability of striking out the proviso in line 1 , page 2 ? If relief is to be extended shall we deny relief to oil placer locations ?
Mr. Mondell. I don't think you should. And yet perhaps I am responsible for that exception. To a certain extent there are arguments for and against it, but there are many reasons why, if tho relief is to be extended, this class of* claims, where the assessment work is of the least value, should be included, because everyone that knows anything about oil placers knows that the ordinary assessment work on an oiler placer practically never is of a character that is of real value for the development of the placer.
Mr. Welling. Did you say, Mr. Mondell, that the shale claims were not considered to be oil placer claims ?
Mr. Mondell. They are not, as I understand it. The gentleman from Colorado can probably tell you more definitely about that, but that is my understanding.
56 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Welling. Is it your understanding that shale claims have been exempt under the law for the la3t two years?
Mr. Mondell. That i3 my understanding.
Mr. Wellino. That is all I have.
Mr. Mondell. I may be mistaken about that, but that has been my understanding of it. That is a matter that might be investigated.
Mr. Rhodes. Just one question, Mr. Mondell. You refer to large areas being held. To what extent do these large areas compare with the holding of claims by individuals ?
Mr. Mondell. Well, they are individuals. The individual can locate as many claims as he desires and can take care of and make discovery on and do the required discovery work and the assessment work on. And in the case of placers, combinations of eight individuals can make one location.
Mr. Parrish. Just one question, Mr. Mondell
Mr. Mondell (interposing). No one but an individual person can be a locator of a mining claim.
Mr. Burke. He can transfer his rights, though, to corporations, to as many claims as he takes up in a year.
Mr. Mqndell. After discovery he can make transfers, yes.
Mr. Parrish. What do you think of the wisdom of limiting the number of claims that an individual could take up?
Mr. Mondell. T have never believed that to be wise. I have always believed that as long as the law operates requiring the work to be done, that that regulates the situation; and it is only when you relieve unnecessarily from the requirements of the law that the evils of large holdings develop.
The Chairman. You said that you believed such relief should be granted in time of great drought, and so forth. Now yesterday we passed an amendment to the agricultural bill over in the House, which indicated that the Northwest had been suffering from drought or failure of crops for the last several years; so much so that the people are leaving there, and they askedf to be exempted from making their improvements on their homesteads.
Mr. Mondell. I referred to that as one of the conditions affecting the general situation that are to be taken into consideration, but, of course, the area affected by this particular drought is an agricultural section. That very condition of drought might present an argument against doing this very thing, because that condition of drought will very greatlv increase the labor supply in the surrounding mining sections. These farmers have to leave their lands; they must secure employment somewhere; the nearer the location of the employment, the better for them, and so far as this present drought is concerned, and the conditions accompanying it and surrounding it, instead of it affording an argument m favor of this relief, I should say that it afforded an argument against it, because relief from the necessity of homestead residence immediately liberates many strong, ablebodied men from the necessity of remaining on their farms and gives them an opportunity to go into the surrounding mining regions and do mining work.
The Chairman. But lode claims can scarcely ever be worked unless they have water.
Mr. Mondell. No assessment work ever halts or hesitates or is neglected on account of lack of water ; unless there is lack of water to drink,
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 57
And the man can always pack enough water — ev,en the most thirsty individual can always pack enough water for his personal use and for the use of his pack animal, if a pack animal is required. Of course, incidentally, if all the springs were dried up it. would make it a little more difficult to secure water, but ordinarily the better watered regions in the country are the regions of the lode claims. They are in the high mountain regions, where the water is most plentiful, because that is in a country where you climb for water and dig for wood, it has been said — in some sections at least.
Mr. Burke. I understood you to say you thought the cessation of farming work would make more labor available for the .mines. Now, if we pass this bill exempting these claims from assessment work, how many prospectors would return to the farms? Would there be many real prospectors whose services the farms would get the benefit of ?
Mr. Mondell. I never knew a prospector, a real prospector, that did very much farming. In my prospecting days perhaps I was one of the exceptions, because I used to farm some at the same time — or ranch. And it is true that prospectors do sometimes do ranch work. That is true, but I should not imagine it would return a very great number of men to farming work. The drouth situation will relieve, on the other hand, many men from — or at least drive them away — from farming operations and make them available for other work.
Mr. Burke. They will be glad to have a place to go to, I presume.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Mondell.
Now, Mr. Smith, we will hear youi
STATEMENT OF HON. ADDISON T. SMITH, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, as I have an engagement with the steering committee, I will occupy but a few minutes of your time.
On general principles I am opposed to passing any legislation extending the law with reference to the suspension of work on mining claims. I hesitate to differ with my good friend Mr. Mondell, because he has been in Congress for 20 years and is recognized as an authority on a great many subjects, but when he comes before this committee and states that he has no information whatever about the sentiment in the country concerning this legislation, it seems to me that some of the arguments he makes may be considerably discounted.
Now, I have here the Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Convention of the Idaho Mining Association in Idaho, which was held on February 11 and 12 of this year in Boise, and which was attended by several hundred mining men from all over the State of Idaho.
Mr. French. This year, wasn't it ?
Mr. Smith. Yes, it was; 1919. At that time the Senate had
Sassed the bill suspending assessment work for 1919, and the Idaho [ining Association passed a resolution which I wish to read — it is very short — indicating the necessity, in the opinion of these mining men, for this legislation.
The Chairman. What date was that? Mr. Smith. February 11 and 12, 1919.
The Chairman. I haven't been able to find yet a bill in which the Senate this year absolved the miners from doing assessment work.
58 Annual Assessment Woek On Mining Claims.
Mr. Welling. It was a bill — if I may be pardoned for interruptingyou — introduced in the last Congress, extending the exemption over 1919. Such a bill did pass the Senate.
The Chairman. Well, yes, but I thought that was this year.
Mr. Smith. Yes; this year, but last Congress.
The Chairman. Approved February 28, 1919.
Mr. Welling. It referred to this year, but was passed in the last Congress.
Mr. Smith. The last session of the last Congress was in 1919.
The Chairman. This applies only to Alaska, that I have before me.
Mr. Smith. These resolutions were introduced and adopted by a convention, as I say, composed of several hundred mining men living in Idaho [reading]:
Whereas those conditions which prompted Congress in passing a law exempting"
owners of unpatented mining claims from performing their annual assessment work
for the years 1917 and 1918 still exist; and
Whereas the individual and small mine owners are and have been more particularly
benefited by such a law, on account of the almost prohibitive costs of labor and
supplies; and Whereas these conditions are likely to exist during the balance of the ensuing year; and Whereas a like bill exempting owners from performing annual assessment work on
mining claims for the year 1919 has passed the United States Senate and is now
before the Committee of Mines and Mining in the lower House of Congress and is
being opposed by the chairman of the said committee —
Mr. Foster, of Illinois, at that time —
Therefor be it resolved, That the Idaho Mining Association in convention assembled strongly approves of the said measure and requests the Representatives in the lower House of Congress to give it their earnest support to the end that it may become the law.
Mr. Smith. Now, unlike Mr. Mondell, I received a number of letters from actual locators urging the suspension of assessment work for this year, but I will only take time to read one of them, and I will ask that the others go into the record.
This letter is from Mr. L. J. Tefft, of Wallace, Idaho. That is in
the Coeur d'Alene region, one of the greatest mining regions in the
known world, and where nearly 50 per cent of the lead ore is mined,
a record maintained for over a period of probably 10 or 15 years
Wallace, Idaho, May 14, 1919, Hon. Addison T. Smith,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: I desire again to call your attention to the importance and need of remitting the annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims for this year at least. There is a scarcity of labor here; the mines are unable to get full crews, and the higher wages paid in the woods, on the ranches — the growing unrest which is threatening to culminate in a strike of the miners, and the prospect of a big harvest at high prices, with consequent high wages — the weak position of mining at present, and the financial strain of the war — all these are factors which contribute to the advisability of such remission. It is not in the interest of the big fellows, but the little ones— the small companies and individual holders of limited means. On the economic side, labor can be used to better advantage now than on dead work; in mining, the work accomplished under the enforcement of the annual assessment clause at present would not be at all commensurate with the outlay, as compared with normal time3.
The miners are preparing and planning on a strike; wages were cut from $5.25 to $4.25, with living ratner higher than during the war. The Wobblies have called a strike for July 1 in the woods, despite the fact that the men are getting the highest pay and best board that industry has ever known.
I would bespeak your best efforts in this, and thank you for your courtesy in the past. Yours, truly,
L. J. Tefft.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 59
I Have several other letters here along the same line from mining claimants in different sections of the State.
I wish to read a telegram which I received yesterday from Hon.
Ravenel MacBeth, the secretary of the Idaho Mining Association,
Wallace, Idaho.
Wallace, Idaho, July 28, 1919. Hon. Addison T. Smith,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C:
Owing inability obtain labor, Anaconda, Utah, other copper properties operating about 40 per cent normal —
that is, mines actually producing are unable to secure sufficient labor to run their mines at full speed. That includes all of these big mining companies in the Coeur (TAlene district —
Couer d'Alene's operating 50 per cent, while labor shortage has practically shut down certain other mining sections, State. Development work on operating mines throughout entire West practically at standstill owing labor shortage, thus proving Representative Taylor's attitude reported by associated press, that exemption will prevent development work, unsound, for there is no such work now being done on operating mines, and if his view holds properties operating on ore reserves will have to close down to permit assessment work that will produce little if any ore.
Ravenel MacBeth.
(The letters referred to follow:)
Sec'y Idaho Mining Ass'n. Boise, Idaho, May 16, 1919.
Hon. Addison T. Smith,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Friend: We are now confronted, for this year at least, and I am sure for at least two years will be confronted, with a labor condition in the Northwest which is and will be startling in its consequences, owing to both scarcity of labor and extreme high wages demanded. The farmers, building trades, and ordinary enterprises are going to consume all the labor on the market and have room for more.
In addition to this, mining, and gold mining in particular, is not now generally a profitable enterprise, owing to the nigh cost of all materials entering into it, as well as the extreme cost of labor. And there is more demand now for a suspension of annual assessment work on mining claims than ever has existed before, and suspension should be afforded for a two-year term, if possible; under anv conditions, for one year, and if not so done, it is going to work an immense amount of hardship on a large number of people in this Commonwealth. I ask you, therefore, to use all your efforts toward the passage of a resolution suspending annual assessment work on mining claims similar to the resolution passed and enforced during the active war period. Most earnestly, yours,
Ira E. Barber.
Twin Falls, Idaho, June 6, 1919. Hon. Addison T. Smith,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: I would like to know what you think the prospect is of Congress suspending mining assessment work for this year; that is, continuing the suspension that was exacted for the years 1917 and 1918.
It seems to me that it is about as necessary now as it was then, as labor is scarce and high, also supplies, provisions, powder, etc., so only about one-half the amount oi work can be got for the same amount of money as could have been had before.
The work that I am interested in is all in the line of development, and like many others interested in gold properties have a feeling that under the circumstances, and the business now being unprofitable, there should be some concession, and a let up from being required to pay for 2 feet of work in order to get 1 foot done. I suppose in time things will return to a normal condition again. Yours, truly,
Kennedy Packard.
Go Annual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims.
Rocky Bar, Idaho, June 27, 1919. Hon. Addison T. Smith,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C:
We, the undersigned, owners of mineral claims in the Rocky Bar mining district, respectfully request your influence and support of the bill exempting assessment work on mining claims for the current year. Respectfully submitted.
Mrs. P. J. Cassin. Wm. A. Nixon.
Old Spanish Town Miners Co., By W. D. Eobert, President. Elk Creek Placers Co., By W. D. Eobert, President. B; P. Nordyke. J. W. Sillivin.
West Hunter Mining Co.,
Mullan, Idaho, July 5, 1919. Hon. Addison T. Smith,
United States Congressman, Washington, D. C.
Honored Sir: I wish to call your attention to the great need for additional relief for the prospector. Of all years of the World War and depressed financial conditions in the West, this is the worst. The reasons are apparent. The prospector has done his " bit ' to win as well as any and all other classes. He has never turned down a call for financial relief or any other thing which he could contribute for the great success which has been attained.
To make it complete, he has strained himself to put the Victory loan over the top, and I personally know of very many of them who have bought bonds on the installment plan, which will take every cent they can save to clear them by the end of the year. So if it is possible to pass the Raker bill at and early date, it will be as little as Congress should expect for this class of trail blazers which nave done so much for the West and mankind.
Thanking you in advance for any special effort you may be able to give in this direction. I am, sir,
Yours, very truly,
J. L. Martin.
Wallace, Idaho, July 8, 1919. Hon. Addison T. Smith,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Smith: I take the present opportunity of calling your attention to the bill introduced into Congress by Hon. Mr. Raker, of California. Its purpose is to set aside the annual assessment work on mining claims for the year 1919. Many of us here would be pleased to have you give this bill your hearty support. Mining is our only and sole industry and the industry has been hit about as hard by the World War and conditions succeeding it as any of our larger national industries. Nevertheless, I believe you will find that our section has aided our Nation as loyally and zealously, by enlistment, by support of all Liberty bond issues, war savings stamps, Tied Cross, etc., as any other section of our great Nation. In view of all these facto we believe no injury to the Commonwealth or locality could result from the passage of a bill probiding for no assessment work on mining claims for the year 1919. Again asking your valuable support for this bill and thanking you in advance, I beg to remain,
Very respectfully,
Chas. R. Mowery, M. D.
Gold Flotation Development Co. (Inc.),
Seattle, Wash., July 15, 1919. Hon. Addison T. Smith,
Washington, D. C.
Sir: I earnestly urge you to give your support to the bill now pending in the House introduced by Representative Raker, of California, providing for the suspension ol assessment work on mining claims for this year.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 61
I believe the individual and small mine owners will be more particularly benefited by such a law on account of the almost prohibitive cost of labor and supplies, which conditions are likely to exist during the balance of the ensuing year. Thanking you for your support, I beg to remain, Yours, very truly,
H. G. Loop.
Mr. Smith. Now, Mr. Chairman, the failure of this bill, in my opinion, will result in a great many of the claimants abandoning their claims, especially those living outside of the State. Many of them can not under existing circumstances do this assessment work on account of the impossibility of securing labor. There is a great deal of the country where the work can not possibly be done after the 1st of October because of climatic conditions, so there is about 60 days remaining in which the work could be done.
Now, it these claims are abandoned it does not mean they will be reentered by the same people, and, in my opinion, the failure to continue this exemption for this year would tend to drive investing from those mining regions, rather than to encourage development, as suggested by Mr. Taylor and Mr. Mondell, as a claim that is abandoned is always under suspicion. A new prospector would be more apt to go out and hunt for a new prospect rather than to file on a claim that has been abandoned, because of the prejudice that would naturally exist that the entrymen were discouraged and did not care to continue development.
Only about a year ago, Mr. Chairman, right here in this room, we had meetings attended bjr some of the experts from the Treasury Department and the Mining Bureau of the Interior Department, urging that legislation be enacted to encourage the development of the gold resources of the State. Mr. Taylor at that time was chairman of the committee and made some splendid arguments in favor of legislation to encourage the development of the gold resources of the State by offering a subsidy or devising some sort of legislation that would have a tendency to encourage development rather than to retard it.
I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if this relief is not afforded at this time. I would be perfectly willing to have a provision inserted in the bill that such relief shall not again be extended, but because of the war conditions and the absolute scarcity of labor in those regions it seems to me it would be very unfair to these men who are trying to develop the mineral resources of the country to refrain from giving them this relief as proposed in the bill.
Mr. Rhodes. May I ask a question at this point, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Smith, you refer to nonresidents holding claims.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Rhodes. To what extent do nonresidents hold claims in your State, as compared with the bona fide resident prospector ?
Mr. Smith. Practically nine-tenths of the money that has been furnished for developing the mineral resources of the West comes from nonresidents. It comes from capitalists living in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York, and other financial centers. Whenever a prospector .has what he thinks is a good find he comes East and interests the people that have money to develop the property; and I think it would be really a great detriment to the mining interests to discourage in any way these men who are holding these claims, who live outside of the State — to discourge them from continuing development.
62 Annual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims.
Probably next year, if they are not compelled to do this assessment work, they will start in again, because money will then be more plentiful, and they will begin in real earnest to develop these claims.
Mr. Welling. Don't you think that three years is a rather long time to give these fellows outside of the State exemption and the possibility of holding and speculating in those claims without paying a dollar?
Mr. Smith. You must know that on account of war conditions the mineral interests of the country have been retarded in development. Conditions have been upset in every line of activity because of war conditions, and that is the only reason that we ask relief now. As I say, I think that probably at the close of this year conditions will be normal and then we can start in to developing these mineral resources in a way which will probably bring results. The Government will lose nothing by extending the time, and the time is so short within which the work can be done that many of these people living in the East, even if they could secure the kind of labor needed, probably would be unable to make arrangements for it. And if you can't get men to do the work, how is it going to be done ?
Mr. Welling. Speaking about the time being short, how many of these prospects do you suppose would ordinarily have teen worked up to the 1st of July? Not one in a thousand.
Mr. Smith. I think that probably not, up to the 1st of July, but certainly between the 1st of June and the 1st of September they would do their work, because of being up in the mountains where the snow lays for so long in the summer it must be done, before winter begins. But it will take time — if this bill is reported, it will take time to get it through the House; it will take time to get it through the Senate, and if it is delayed very much longer it really would be no use to do anything.
Mr. Rhodes. One more question, Mr. Smith. In your opinion, do you think these privileges applying to individuals generally, under the liberal provisions of this exemption law, a law applying to prospecting, do you think this is for or against public policy?
Mr. Smith. Well, I think, under ordinary conditions it is against public policy to make these exemptions, but the provisions of the mining laws are not so liberal as you might suppose, when you take into consideration the remoteness of these prospects from civilization and the difficulty in getting men to go into those remote sections and do the work. We have right here in Washington, as Members of Congress, an example — it is impossible to get help in our offices. I have been hunting for a stenographer for three weeks, an extra stenographer, and have not been able to get one. And the same scarcitv of labor exists out in that country. If the men are not there to do the work, you can't possibly get the work done, and it seems to me that you ought to be convinced, in view of the evidence that has been submitted here right up to date almost, from the men that are on the ground, that conditions are such there that they can't get this help. The harvest fields of Kansas, I understand, want 100,000 men to save the harvest, and they can't get half that number.
The Chairman. Is this drought up in your country.
Mr. Smith. This drought extends all over the Northwest country. They haven't had any rain in Idaho, at least the southern part of it, for over 90 days.
Annual Assessment W0Bk Ok Mining Claims. 63
The Chairman. What about the thought of Mr. Mondell, that labor would be more plentiful just from that fact?
Mr. Smith. There might be something in that, but the farming regions are a longdistance from the mining regions. That is where this drought is. The drought is on the plains in the southern part of the State and in Montana and Wyoming especially. But it would take probably $50 or $100 for a man to get to the mines, even on horseback, from these farming sections.
Mr. Robsion. Isn't this true, Mr. Smith, that if he gets there it is a small job, even if he gets it?
Mr. Smith. Yes; he don't get much out of it, and probably in order to get him to go in there you would have to him give $200 or $300 bonus in addition to the wages he would receive. The Government is not going to lose anything by extending this concession to these deserving people who are out there trying to develop the resources of the country, and they ought to be encouraged rather than to be burdened with this sort of a law at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you, very much, Mr. Smith. Mr. French, have you finished your statement ?
Mr. French. Yes ; there will be nothing further that I can offer.
The Chairman. Mr. Taylor, have you anything further ?
Mr. Taylor. I did want to make a little further statement, but I will wait till these other gentlemen are through. I do want to make one or two other observations.
The Chairman. Then we will hear you now, Judge Webster.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN S. WEBSTER, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN C05GRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
Mr. Webster. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I haven't any idea that I shall be able to add very greatly to jrour sum of information unon the matter you now have in hand, but inasmuch as the district which I represent is largely interested in mining I have felt it my duty to come here and submit a few considerations to this committee.
I want to impress upon you that the mining business in the State of Washington is materially different from the condition existing in the State of Idaho. In the Coeur d'Alene region of Idaho, the greatest mining district in the world, mining has been highly developed; great wealth is there; they are taking the wealth from the bowels of the earth and they have money with which to operate and to tide themselves over the lean period, but in eastern Washington the condition is entirely different. There it may be said — and I think with fair accuracy — that mineral development is in its infancy. There has been no speculation in mining claims encouraged in that section by the law already passed, providing for the suspension of assessment work during the years 1917 and 1918.
I am not prepared to challenge in the least the statement of any gentleman that it has had that effect in other regions. I accept their statements as absolutely true, but I do know that there has been no such tendency in eastern Washington.
Now the committee should know a littte more definitely just what the status of this matter is in eastern Washington. It might shed some light on what would be a wise policy in this matter.
64 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WOBK ON MINING CLAIMft.
You will understand that prospecting is a hazardous thing. It is largely engaged in by men of small means or no means at all, and unless they are able to secure a grubstake from somebody they can not engage in prospecting as an occupation; they must engage in other useful work in order to obtain money upon which to live while they incidentally prospect. It is apparent to anyone at all familiar with western conditions that with the great industrial activity that we are experiencing in that section now, that men are not going to take a roll of blankets on their backs and go into the inaccessible and remote sections of the country to do a job limited to $100, especially when there are no boarding houses, no conveniences for them to enioy. The prospector takes a roll of blankets on his back, takes a skillet and a coffee pot; he gets some beans and some potatoes and some bacon and some hardtack, and he goes out into those remote sections and stays there temporarily and does his assessment work and leaves.
During the war the taking from the usual activities of life of a large number of soldiers — who I understand are provided for in other legislation, but I am speaking of the effect of their leaving — many men who lived on small ranches raised a little crop and by that means maintained a shelter for himself and family and something for them to eat. In time when it was not seasonable to do agricultural work he would locate a mining claim and put in his odd time in trying to develop a mining proposition. They are compelled to go out and do other work in order to live. Some of them have a little Government land; they live on it and till a crop. Others will go out and work for neighbors 6r seek other employment and accumulate a little money that will enable them after the job ends to go out into the mountain regions and do the assessment work upon their claims.
When the war came, the activities in the State of Washington incident to the war were all on the Sound. The interior of Washington, the intermountain country, did not have any stimulation of industry due to war enterprises. They were in the spruce camps and in the shipbuilding plants, and these men, many of them, with their families, literally thousands of them from my home city of Spokane, went to the coast in order to get the benefit of these wages and in order also to render essential war service. Many of those men have now been thrown out of employment in the spruce camps, because that work has practically ceased, but many of them are still holding positions in the shipbuilding yards and in other enterprises that have been stimulated as a result of the war. Now those men should be given an opportunity to get back to their homes, that they may not lose the results of the toil already expended upon their claims.
I want to say to this committee that I do not stand for any policy that will encourage the grabbing up of mining claims for the purpose of speculation. I think that sort of thing is as injurious to my section of the country as it is to any section, and any measure that would encourage or premiumize that sort of thing would not be of advantage to my constituents but would be a distinct disadvantage.
Mr. Rhodes. Does that condition prevail in your State to any great extent ?
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. ۤ
Mr. Webster. Not at all. I have never heard of it, sir. I have seen discussions of it in the papers. During my campaign for Congress I was all over my district and came in contact with the prospector and talked with him, and I know something of his hard* ships and I know something of the manner of his life, and I have not heard of a single instance where there has been any disposition on the part of men to come in there and gobble up these claims. But let us assume that there has been that tendency elsewhere — and I assume it as a fact because it has been stated as a fact.
Mr. Robsion. I want to ask Judge Webster a question there. Isn't it a fact that in your section it was an issue among the people, the common people there — an issue demanding that you stand for this relief ?
Mr. Webster. Oh,yes. As a matter of fact, through some reason or other, in the remote, inaccessible sections of my district during the campaign it was studiously circulated that I had taken a position of hostility toward granting the relief, the very relief provided for in this bill, and wherever I would go into the mining sections, that story having preceded me, those interested in mining would come to me to talk with me about it and to seek to change my view upon it, and in that way I got an expression from those engaged in that work. I had never had any opinion about it at that time at all. I had been engaged in judicial work and I did not know the conditions that obtained in the mining sections and had not only not expressed any opinion upon the matter either one way or the other, but nad formed no opinion upon the matter either one way or the other. But in that way the men interested in this matter sought me out to tell me of their difficulties, and I know something of their difficulties.
Now, this policy of relieving these men from doing this assessment work, under ordinary conditions I am very frank to say to this committee does not meet my approval. I can understand its unwisdom as a general proposition, but we are confronted here, gentlemen, with a peculiar situation ? an unusual situation. I do not want to challenge or debate positions taken by other gentlemen. Frankly I do want to say that I do not believe there is very much force in the argument based upon high prices either of material or labor, because I think it is apparent to all qf us that there is no reasonable hope that those conditions will be one bit better in 1920 than they are in 1919. And that is not the reason upon which I am urging tne passage of this measure.
Moreover, if conditions are such that prices of material are high and
{>rices of labor are high, then $100 worth of assessment work will be ess material and less work. That is about all that I can see to that. But the trouble about it is, gentlemen, they haven't the $100. That is the point. It is all right to talk about them spending it if they had it, but it is a different matter to require them to spend it when they haven't got it.
Mr. Welling. Judge, you are speaking now for the individual prospector himself ?
Mr. Webster. Yes, sir; absolutely. I am speaking for the man who ought to be. protected by such legislation as this. . . .
Mr. Welling. Well, a great percentage of the $100 is represented by his own labor, is it not ?
66 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Webster. Yes, that is true, but he must eat and his familymust live, and during the time that he is required to do assessment work, if he is engaged in wage earning he must make provision against that time. He must have something for his family to live on.
Mr. Welling. It wouldn't take him more than 10 days, would it ?
Mr. Webster. I am not prepared to say whether a man could do $10 worth of work a day on a mining claim. I very seriously question it, because, as you say, it represents largely his labor, and I doubt if $10 a day would be fair pay tor that labor.
Mr. Welling. They have been getting that all over your State, haven't they, in those spruce countries ?
Mr. Webster. No, I think the highest wage ever paid for ordinarymanual labor in the spruce camps was about $7.
Mr. Welling. Now, with reference to this question, since it entered into your campaign
Mr. Webster (interposing). I ai$ not here because of that fact, please permit me to say.
Mr. Welling. I understand. Since this thing was brought particularly to your attention, how many of your constituents after all did it affect, as owners of mining claims ?
Mr. Webster. Well, I am not sufficiently advised upon the detail of it to express an intelligent opinion, and I would not care to guess at it. Your guess upon it would be as close to it as my own. But if this relief should be extended one additional year, you gentlemen all of you understand that that would not premiumize locating any claims this year, because a claim located this year would not require any assessment work to be done on it any way.
Air. Welling. That is true.
Mr. Webster. If there has been a tendency created by this legislation already enacted to cause men to grab up these claims, that water has gone over the dam, and all the king s horses and all the king's men can't change it; and to extend this benefit one additional year will simply postpone the day when these speculators, these gamblers, these claim grabbers, will be called upon to go in and develop those claims or they will lose them. It will enable the poor prospector — and he is the fellow that I have at heart just now — it wiU enable these men who have heretofore done work on their claims to get on their feet, to become readjusted and to prevent the lapsing of their claims.
I have no thought, gentlemen, that this measure will stimulate mining development in the West. If it has any effect in that direction, it perhaps will have a contrary effect, in my judgment. It is not in the hope that it will stimulate mining development that I am here; it is in the interest of these men, that they may be permitted to hold together the result of their sweat and their toil, and that the small fellow may not lose the benefit of what he has already acquired ; not to premiumize the grabbing of claims — not that at all.
Now, when you go into the West and you undertake in the labor market to employ a man to go out and do work on your claim you say, "Why don't this fellow that is over in the shipyard now earning good wages, or in the lumber camps' ' — which right now are veryactive in the West supplying lumber, I suppose, to rebuild the stricken countries abroad — "why don't he, from his own large wages, employ somebody to do this work for him?" For the very simple
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 67
reason that the work he is doing is work that the other fellow can do, too, and he is also engaged in work where wages are high, and they will not take these temporary jobs and go out into these inaccessible and remote places with a pack on their back when mining camps are open to them, furnishing them three fine meals a day, a comfortable Ded in which to sleep, whereas if he goes into mining development work he is required to do his own cooking, sleep in the open, and work during daylight. They won't go, and you can't employ them. You can't get them. Not only that, many of these men in eastern Washington who are prospectors are farmers. They have been driven to it. They will clear up some ground, maybe upon a homestead that they have taken up, and they will plant a small crop, and they will cultivate it and by that means earn a livelihood and incidentally prospect a mining claim — develop a mining claim. Mr. Mondell saia he did not think that very many prospectors worked at farming, but a very great many farmers work at prospecting.
Now, in eastern Washington during the past four years we have had drouths. These men could not eke out an existence in many instances upon these little patches they had cleared up, and they have been forced to look for other employment. The war activities and the taking of men away have given them employment, and if you will give them an additional year in which they may readjust themselves conditions may resume the normal. Normal is not going to be any more, gentlemen, what normal was before the war; I understand that, but it will give them a chance to get back, give them an opportunity to get their breath, and will enable the small fellow to protect his holdings. That is all there is to it.
Of course, I understand that the suggestion of my friend can not be validly incorporated into law, that this shall not be extended any more, because this Congress can not trench upon the power of a succeeding Congress to enact laws.
The Chairman. Conditions may warrant it, too.
Mr. Webster. I certainly shall ,not appear before this committee after the expiration of 1919 in support of a measure of this sort.
The Chairman. There may be a different condition, even worse than this present one. There may be the possibility of that.
Mr. Webster. No doubt of that.
The Chairman. This bill doesn't provide for anything further.
Mr. Rhodes. If that condition, then, should arise and conditions be worse then, what would be the objection to extending it ?
Mr. Webster. Because there must come a time in the nature of things when this sort of legislation shall stop, but things have not yet resumed normal; it is too soon after the cessation of war for these men to get back from the places of employment they have enjoyed as an incident of the war and take up their residences on their claims and go ahead with their ordinary pursuits.
Mr. Welling. It would be a very interesting thing to know how you determine two years is too short a time and three years is exactly the right time.
Mr. Webster. I haven't said three years was exactly the right time.
Mr. Welling. But you have asserted you would not come back lifter this year.
68 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Webster. Because at the expiration of this year the war will then have been over more than a year, and if things are going to get normal, so far as this aspect 01 this matter is concerned, they ought to be normal then; and if these men can't live under normal conditions, of course I don't expect the Government to save them.
Mr. Welling. The war will have been over more than a year at the end of this year.
Mr. Webster. Yes; and all of this assessment work that is going to be done this year will have been completed, if it is done at all, long before November 1 1 of this year.
Mr. Welling. No ; I think you are wrong about that.
Mr. Webster. Well, if you inquire, you will find that you can't do much work in the mining regions after the late fall because of the snow and the conditions of the weather.
Mr. Welling. I live in a mining region, and most of the prospecting work — most of the assessment work — is done during November and December in my section.
Mr. Webster. Where is your section ?
Mr. Welling. Utah is my State.
Mr. Webster. Well, I think Mr. French will bear me out that there isn't much opportunity for doing assessment or prospecting work in either Idaho or eastern Washington after the 1st of November.
Mr. French. Our conditions are similar to yours, Judge.
Mr. Robsion. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this: Has this legislation tended to retard mining development or do you think another year will cause it to retard mining development ? You, as a citizen of Washington, are interested in the development of your State.
Mr. Webster. Surely I am; but, frankly, I would have to answer your question by saying that any legislation which tends to permit or encourage not doing development work could not be said to tend to develop mining.
Mr. Kinkaid. Is this not the case, that the war has retarded miningdevelopment very greatly ?
Mr. Webster. There is no question about that.
Mr. Welling. Now, the thought I had with reference to that is, I have heard that thing asserted that you have just said by half a dozen men here. It seems to me — and I want to be fair about this thing, and I want to be for this bill
Mr. Webster (interposing). I haven't the slightest doubt of the fairness of any member of this committee.
Mr. Welling. It seems to me that the position that the releasing of these men tends to retard mining development is not a well taken
J position. The prospector ordinarily is more a miner than he is a armer. In all human probability the larger number of prospectors are men who earn their living in producing mines. Now, if you take a man out of a producing mine and put him onto a prospect, you are retarding the mineral production of the country.
Mr. Webster. That would be true in places where those conditions exist, but those conditions do* not exist in the section with which I am familiar.
Mr. Welling. Are you sure they exist in the Coeur d' Alene region ?
Mr. Webster. Yes; and I have just attempted to demonstrate to your committee that the conditions existing in the Coeur d'Alene district are entirely different from the conditions existing in eastern Washington.
AJSTfrUAL ASSESSMENT WOBK ON MINING CLAIMS. 69
Mr. Welling. But I thought you were just trying to tell me that the conditions were parallel.
Mr. Webster. I was saying that the conditions were parallel so far as the weather was concerned. The sun shines out there on the western side of the State boundary between Washington and Idaho just like it does on the eastern side, and the rain falls and the snow descends substantially in the same way.
Mr. Welling. If I can justify this bill on the theory that it means more lead and silver and gold in circulation, I shall try hard to do it, because I believe, and I have always believed, that the men that are working these idle prospects very largely came from producing rfiines rather than farms.
Mr. Webster. Well, the inherent justice of this situation appeals to me. Here is a man who has struggled along and perhaps done three years of valuable work on his claim, representing a great deal to him — not as much as it would to you or to me, perhaps, but a great deal to him — if he is unable to do this assessment work he loses his claim; it becomes subject to location, and some fellow comes and gobbles it up and gets the benefit of his sweat and toil, and I want, if I can, to give the fellow who is in good faith honestly intending to develop his claim and to hold on to it a chance to do it, without premiumizing the grabbing of claims for speculative purposes. My appeal is for the small prospector, the fellow who needs this relief. The big prospector doesn't need it, because he has money with which to carry on his operations, and if a man goes and takes a large number of claims it is in the hope that he will have sufficient f unds with which to develop them. The small prospector doesn't take very many claims because he knows he can t hold them. He can't do the work that the Government requires, and, consequently, he tries to select a good claim and devote his efforts to that, and if this relief is not given, the claims that will be abandoned in the main will be the best prospects in the districts, because they are owned by the single individual who can not afford to develop but one or two.
Mr. Welling. I know a lot of old prospectors, Judge, and I never saw one that didn't have a good claim. [Laughter.]
Mr. Webster. As he tells you or as he tells our friends in the East when he is trying to finance it. But the old prospector is a pretty wise old fellow, and he doesn't always tell you what he thinks.
Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one question. I am certainly interested in what has been said, and I am certainly strongly in sympathy with the real prospector, not the claim graboer or the speculator. Assuming that in your State the speculator does not prevail as against the individual prospector, but assuming that there are States in which a majority of tnose who hold claims are nonresidents, in your opinion, would it not be wise, in the event this bill is reported, to limit the number of claims that are exempt, in order that the benefits arising from this legislation would inure to the individual prospector as against the man who might hold 100 claims, residing a thousand miles from the State in which the industry is situated ? What do you think about that ?
Mr. Webster. If you desire my personal opinion about it without attempting to speak for anybody else or to embarrass the position of anybody eke, frankly I can see no objection to that being done.
tO ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WORK ON MINING CLAIMS.
Mr. Rhodes. Personally, as a member of this committee, with all due regard to the opinions of gentlemen, I don't think it makes any difference; it ought not to make any difference so far as my position is concerned on this committee what the individual opinion of a member is. I want to know the facts, and I want to know who is interested and who are entitled to the benefits, and if there are those who are entitled to these benefits our business is to respond.
Mr. Webster. Gentlemen, permit me to say this: I could not undertake to give you any definite figures, but yon would perhaps be surprised to know the number of people living in the city of Spokane who are prospectors, mining locators. Many of the employees in the court house and in the city hall and in the post office and in the department stores and in the other city activities spend their vacations out in the mountains doing assessment work upon a mining claim.
Mr. Kinkaid. It is a gamble, and they like it because it is a gamble*
Mr. Taylor. Isn't this true, that if they limited the number that might be exempt to five, ir would take care of ninety-nine out of a hundred of those men ?
Mr. Webster. It would take care of practically all of them, I think, in my section.
Mr. Taylor. Let me make just two or three suggestions, Mr. Chairman, before I close, and I am not going to argue the bill. There are two or three things that I think you ought to consider.
The Chairman. Mr. Taylor, I think we had better have another hearing to-morrow morning. It is now 12 o'clock.
Mr. Taylor. I want to just summarize two or three matters.
The Chairman. Some of the members are anxious to be on the floor.
Mr. Taylor. I find on looking up the law that you have got to do something for these soldiers. You have got to pass some kind of a bill, it seems to me. I have got those statutes here and I just wanted to call your attention to them.
The Chairman. You can appear to-morrow morning.
Mr. Raker. I want to say a few words also.
The Chairman. We will adjourn until 10.30 to-morrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until 10.30 o'clock a. m., Saturday, July 26.)
Committee on Mines and Mining,
House of Representatives,
Saturday, July 26, 1919.
The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. Mahlon M. Garland (chairman) presiding. The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWAKD T. TAYIOK, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO— Re-
sumed.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I want to make just three or four suggestions, and then I will not take up any further time of the committee.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 71
The Chairman. Very well, Mr. Taylor. By the way, while you are here, I have before me a couple of telegrams and letters from people in Colorado to Mr. Timberlake, in which they expressed themselves for the extension.
(The papers referred to follow:)
Boulder, Colo., July 25, 1919. Hon. Chas. B. Timberlake,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C:
Have consulted a large number of business men. Unanimous opinion that law in operation during war suspending assessment work on mining claims be continued for 1919. A large number of men are not home yet, and some who are, who financially unable to work their claims. All will probably be home by December 31, 1919.
Frank E. Eckel, Boulder Commercial Association.
Colorado Springs, Colo., July 25, 1919. Chas. B. Timberlake,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C:
We believe assessment work on mining claims should be suspended additional year. This is opinion of several prominent members of the chamber of commerce, only one of whom is connected with mining business.
Wm. Hite.
Up-To-Date Mining Co., Boulder, Colo., July 22, 1919. Hon. C B. Timberlake,
Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: I understand that a resolution has been introduced in Congress providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims for this year. In my judgment this resolution should receive the support of all our Repre sentatives in Congress from Colorado. While the writer could not be benefitted in any way by the enactment of this resolution, there is no doubt in my mind that a great emergency exists at the present time which necessitates the passage of this resolution for the year 1919. The miners never faced a more discoutaging situation in this State in its entire history than they do to-day. The appalling economic conditions in nearly every great district in this State has greatly discouraged both the miner and the operator. We not only have a shortage of labor and a very high cost of materials and supplies, but we also have a demoralizing market for the base metals; we also have a situation in which gold is only worth about $10 per ounce; and now we are credibly informed that this country is about to make arrangements to sell England about 100,000,000 ounces of silver at a price of $1 per ounce; and the silver market has been so manipulated as to depress the market for this product from $1.20 per ounce down to $1. This will result in discouragement of the silver miners in all our silver districts.
The situation in Boulder County, where I reside, is appalling. The tungsten industry is absolutely paralyzed and not a wheel is turning. The low-grade gold properties are all closed down, and to add to our discouragement recently we were confronted with a depressed Bilver market. Furthermore, there seems to be no prospect for immediate relief in the enactment of a tariff law, and recently the Attorney General of the United States has so construed the law for the reimbursement of losses sustained by the tungsten miners so as to beat each little tungsten producer i n this State. The big corporations which had direct negotiations with the Government are to be reimbursed, but the little fellow who was patriotic enough to do his duty during the war in the production of war minerals, is to be beaten out of his just losses, and it is very doubtful if there is a single producer in Colorado that will receive reimbursement for loss.
In view of the demoralizing conditions in all of the mining regions of this State, this resolution to suspend assessment work should certainly be passed, and I trust you will give it your support. Very truly, yours,
John R. Wolff.
12 AtFNVAL ASSESSMENT WORK Off MINING CLAIMS.
Denver, Oolo., July 21, 1919. Hon. Charles Timberlake,
United States Congressman, Washington, D. C.
Hon. and Dear Mr. Timberlake: I understand that a resolution 1b pending in Congress providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims this year.
I believe that it is almost universally conceded that this bill should be made a law, based principally from the broad standpoint of public policy.
The emergency which warranted the suspension of assessment work on mining claims during the war still exists, and we believe that the public interest generally, the interests of many returning soldiere, and all other persons would be subserved and conserved, and that universal justice would be done by the passage of this act.
Labor shortage, the high cost of material and supplies, with other distressing conditions of the industry, undoubtedly justifies and warrants the suspension of assessment work this year.
The mining industry has had many unusual burdens to carry, during the war, and has failed to get consideration, so far, that it deserves : and it does seem that the interests of the public of all concerned will be well served in this bill.
Assuring you that our Colorado people appreciate the efficient manner in which you are serving them, and the whole nation at large, I am, Yours, very respectfully,
Frank E. Wire.
Mr. Taylor. Frankly, I think, it would be a popular thing among the mining claim owners to suspend this law. That is, I think that practically everybody who owns unpatented mining claims would be willing to be relieved from doing the annual assessment work this year. My thought about the matter is this: Assume that the owners of the mining claims would very largely like to be relieved from doing the $100 worth of work; then the question is whether or not it is for the general welfare of the communities and the mining industry throughout the West from a broad gauge standpoint to further suspend work. That is, whether or not we are ever going to have mining development in the western country by these continuous suspension? It is now three years since any work has been done on most claims. It is probably an unpopular thing for me to express a doubt about the wisdom of this bill. But I am looking at it from the broad gauge standpoint of developing the mines, and getting the mining industry back to prewar times. I think anyone of you gentlemen will agree with the statement that I have sometimes heard that in any eastern, northern, or western state, "if we could get every man of our party to put in 10 cents, we could sweep the State at any election." When people have a stake in anything, no matter how small, they will do something, and when you get a man to put something into a mining claim he is going to try to develop it and make a mine out of it. But if he can run along and do nothing and spend nothing for years and years without anything at stake, he is not so apt to develop it, and it encourages locating and holding large groups of claims for sale and with little or no development.
The Chairman. I think one weighs against the other, and it will depend upon the final judgment of the committee.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, there are two sides to the question and I want the committee to do what seems best for the mining people generally. When we passed the bill known as the soldiers' and sailors' civil relief act on the 8th of March, 1918, we thought we had passed a general amnesty, you might say, for all civil obligations during the war.
Now I find in reading that act that it merely refers to the act of July 17, 1917, which I have here, and which is the bill that relieves the
ANttTJAL ASSESSMENT WORK ON MINING CLAIMS, 73
soldiers from doing their assessment work during the war, or during the time they are in service and six months after they are relieved from service. Now where men are discharged — as most of them have been — during the first six months of this year, under the law they are not relieved from doing the assessment work this year. Now what I want to suggest is first, that in my judgment you have got to pass some bill to relieve these boys. Now, every boy that is discharged before the 1st day of July this year had got to under the law as it now stands do this year's assessment work, if you don't relieve him from doing it. Now he ought to be relieved ; we ought not to compel of these men to get right off of a transport and go right out and do this assessment work or have his claim jumped. So I say, you should pass an act relieveing all these boys that are discharged anytime during the year 1919, before the 31st day of December, from doing any assessment work this year. Now that is my first very earnest suggestion. The law referred to and which we must amend is as follows:
[Public Resolution — No. 10 — 65th Congress.]
JOINT RESOLUTION To relieve the (rvnors of mining claims who have been mustered into the military or naval sgrvioe of the United States as officers or enlisted men from performing assessment work during the term of such service.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of section twenty-three hundred and twenty-four of the Rvisd Statutes of the United States, which require that on each mining claim locat r d after the t°nth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and until patent has been issued ther?for, not less than $100 worth of labor shall be p?rformed or improvements made during each year, shall not apply to claims or parts of claims own' d by officers or enlisted men who have been or may, during the present war with Germany, be mustered into the military or naval service of the United States to s rve during th?ir enlistment in the war with Germany, so that no mining claim or any part thereof ownd by such person which has been regularly located and r°cord r d shall be subject to forfeiture for nonperformance of the annual assessments during the period of his srvice or until six months after such owner is mustered out of the service or until six months afW his death in the service: Provided, That the claimant of any mining location, in ordr to obtain the benefits of this resolution, shall file, or cause to be filed, a notice in the office where the location notice or certificate is rcordd, before the expiration of the assessment year during which he is so mustered, giving notice of his must r into the service of the United States and of his desire to hold said mining claim under this resolution.
Approved, July 17, 1917.
Mr. Welling. Nobody thought they were relieved longer than six months after they were discharged.
The Chairman. We had the idea in mind of including them in this bill.
Mr. Taylor. That is the first thing you want to do.
Mr. Welling. Just a moment, Mr. Taylor — the bill as it reads now includes them.
The Chairman. I know it does.
Mr. Welling. If we don't change a letter or anything in the bill, they are all included — everybody.
Mr. Kinkaid. As it reads now, that will include them.
Mr. Taylor. Certainly, and whether or not you are going to pass a general bill, I think you have got to pass something for these soldiers, and I think you ought to do that promptly, so they will be in no doubt about it any longer.
74 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Now, there is another feature, and this second matter I want to urge upon you is this: Whatever your committee is going to do, da it now. I received a letter to-day from the Standard Chemical Co. r one of the largest mining claims (carnotite) owners in Colorado, saying that that company has already done 87 per cent of its assessment work for this year. But they favor the passage of this bill just the same.
I feel that you ought not to let this bill go over without action until after we take a six-weeks' recess, and then come back here next fall sometime when nearly all the industrious fellows have gone out and done their work and they pass this bill and reward the lazy fellows that don't do anything and have hung back in the hope that Congress will relieve them. I think that if you are going to pass this suspension bill you should do so at once and let the mining people throughout the West know at once that they will not be required to do this work this vear, and not wait until away long late in the fall to pass the bill. I think you ought to, if possible, get it out before this recess. You ought to get it out and pass it if you are going to do anything at all for this year.
The Chairman. That is impossible now before recess.
Mr. Taylor. It may be impossible, but if you take this recess now for six weeks these people are not going to take chances. They will say, " Here, if Congress is not going to do anything after they had these hearings down here, it looks as though they are not going to do it at all, and I am not going to take any chances. " And the industrious and most deserving ones will go out and do the work before the weather gets bad, and if yotl pass it later on in the fall or next winter you may be rewarding many large group holders and some others that are not the most deserving.
The Chairman. I have no doubt that if the committee does decide to report the bill they will try to get it passed before recess ; but the time is very short now.
Mr. Taylor. I think, Mr. Chairman, you ought to confer with the chairman of the Mining Committee over in the Senate and see what their disposition is, and if you decide that you are going to pass a bill, why pass it out and get it out in time this summer to do somebody some good, instead of holding it back until it is too late to be of any benefit to hundreds of honest and industrious fellows.
The Chairman. Now, I would like to have your judgment on this. The Senate did pass this same bill last session, indicating that they are favorable — because there is not a great deal of change there.
Mr. Taylor. Conditions have changed a good deal since that time. At that time many people thought the whole country was going to be flooded with soldiers who would have nothing to do and everybody would be wanting a job, and we wanted to furnish them work. So 1 don't think that sentiment last winter is any criterion now, because there is a great scarcity of labor now.
The Chairman. My point was this: In the event of the committee deciding to report the bill out, and even though we are not able to get it passed before the recess, if it is reported out that would naturally go out through the country as an evidence of what Congress probably would do.
Mr. Taylor. That would then give them a kind of a feeling of security that they would probably be safe in relying upon Congress
Annual assessment work on mining claims, 75
to pmss the bill. But, as I say, I think you ought to determine it in conjunction with the Senate and House Mining Committee and mate up your minds now what you are going to do, and then if the majority are in favor of passing this bill, go ahead and do it now and do your level best to put it through. And if you thoroughly make up vour minds you are not going to do it, give that out to the country and let the mining people know definitely, so they can go ahead and do their work.
Mr. Brooks. What do you think about the advisability of limiting them to a certain number of claims t
Mr. Taylor. I am coming to that next. The first thing is, take care of the returning soldiers. The second thing is, report out and pass the bill now if you are going to pass it at all. The third thing is, to treat all mining claims alike.
Now I think Mr. Mondell and I have got as many mining claims in our States as any of the States, and we were both of us very seriously criticised because the oil placer claims have not been included in the exemption during the past two years and they had to do their work and the other fellows did not. Now I think you ought to put us all on an even basis. I think everybody is now agreed on that. Treat all placer and lode claims alike and exempt all or none.
Mr. Kinkaid. You mean you have in your district? You don't mean that you have any claims, either one of you, individually?
Mr. Taylor. Oh, no; I used to spend about all the spare money I had in mining claims, but I haven't got a nickel on earth in any of them now.
So I say, treat them all alike; if you are going to relieve any of them, exempt all alike. That is only fair.
Now, as to the limitation, in the number of claims that any one may exempt, I can't help but believe that it would be a good policy, if you feel that you ought not to relieve and exempt these fellows with large groups of claims and give them a third year of relief from work, I do feel that there is a great deal of merit in the recommendations of some of my constituents in taking care of the little fellows. My friend, Judge Raker, here the other day, you will remember, sh3d great alligator tears for one fellow who had to go up to the head of the creek somewhere, 20 miles up a desolate canyon and do all the work all by himself and live up there under a pinon tree or in a hole in the ground, listening to the coyotes and gray wolves howling, and the horned owl hooting on the hill; but when I asked him if he wouldn't be willing to limit this exemption to this poor prospector and every other man that only had four or five claims, he said, "No; oh, no," and you will find that much of the appeals for this bill comes not from the poor prospector with one, two, three, or four, or five claims, but from nonresident owners of large groups of claims. I know what it is, and I know it would be very popular to let those big fellows out, but, candidly, I doubt very much whether we are going to develop our mining industry very much by allowing large groups of claims to lie idle year in and year out, and require nothing to be done on them and camps to become abandoned and the people go away. I feel that those six or eight telegrams that J presented here to your committee the other day protesting against this bill are public-spirited statements that very
76 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
largely represent the general public welfare of the mining districts. I hope to see the mining industry revived, and it never will be I fear by these annual suspensions.
Mr. Kinkaid. You are in favor of limiting the number, in case it is done ?
Mr. Taylor. Yes; I feel that you might make some limitations on the number of claims that any person, association, or corporation could exempt. That may be illogical in a way. Of course the big fellows are entitled to protection as well as the little fellows, but after all, the wealthy people, if they are going to hold these groups, ought, in fairness, to do something to build up and maintain the mining industry and help support the mining camps and communities. You can't keep up a mining camp by never spending anything on it.
Mr. Rhodes. Just one question there, Mr. Chairman — what would be your idea as to a maximum number of claims that should be exempted ?
Mr. Taylor. Ordinarily, I think I should fix it at five. I think you would take care of every actual prospector and every desel-ving business man, every bona fide little fellow who is trying to open up a mine. A poor man can't carry a large group of claims, and a rich man ought not to hold a large group for years without doing anything with them.
Mr. Rhodes. It has been stated by some gentlemen that practically all the claims in their respective States and congressional districts were held by bona fide residents of their State. It was stated by another gentleman that perhaps nine-tenths of the claims in his State were held by nonresidents. What is the condition in your State ?
Mr. Taylor. I think you ought to average that up. As a matter of fact I don't think either one of those .gentlemen is entirely correct. I think it is somewhere between these two estimates.
Mr. Rhodes. That being such a divergence, it is hardly worth anything to me.
Mr. Taylor. I think both of those gentlemen have gone to the extreme. We have nonresident holders in every State, and it is fortunate for us that we do have, as we very much need outside money; and then we have the home fellows that are always taking a gamble on a claim or two or more and trying to develop them into a mine. I think the average of resident and nonresident owners is between those two.
Mr. Rhodes. Then the mean between these extremes would be about half ?
Mr. Taylor. I think probably that is true. I think in Wyoming a large number of those oil claims are owned by Colorado and Oklahoma people.
Mr. Kinkaid. Oil claims, you mean ?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Kinkaid. That is more so with oil than it is with metal ?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have this morning, and since I submitted to your committee the other day a number of protests against this bill and anv further exemption of assessment work, received several letters and three telegrams in favor of this bill, and I want to submit them for the record and ask your committee to carefully consider them and then do what you think is for the best interests of the mining people of the West.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims, 77
The seven letters and three telegrams are as follows*
Standard Chemical Co.,
Naturita, Colo., July 22, 1919. Congressman Edward Taylor,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Taylor: I have been informed by the Colorado Metal Mining Association that there is a resolution pending in Congress providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented claims this year.
You know better than I can tell why there is a great scarcity of miners in the Arner* ican mining world ; this partly due to the fact that silver-mining properties are being heavily operated on account of the present good price of silver. In view of the fact that there is a great scarcity of miners, and also owing to the fact that a big percentage of the mining labor are owners of unpatented mining properties, I feel that if annual work for this year were suspended it would relieve mining operators to a great extent of the shortage of mining labor. I think that the country would have been ahead if this law had been passed four or five months ago, and if it is to be passed at all this year it should be attended to immediately.
'the Standard Chemical Co. during the month of June spent $2,000 on railroad transportation bringing men to assist in carrying on its operations, and the necessity of bringing these men in was principally brought about on account of a large percentage of our old miners quitting their work to go into the hills to do their assessment work. At the present time the only object we have in having this bill passed is to assist us in getting labor with which to carry on our operations.
As you are aware, we have a large number of unpatented claims, but we do our annual work with diamond drills, and to-day we have 87 per cent of our assessment work done. However, to enable the American mining world to carry on operations with any efficiency at all the miners should be exempted this year from annual work.
Trusting you will give this your usual prompt and careful attention, I remain, Respectfully, yours,
John S. Mullen, General Superintendent.
Vindicator Consolidated Gold Mining Co.,
Denvbr, Colo., July 25, 1919. Hon. Edward T. Taylor,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Congressman: We understand that there is before Congress a resolution providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims for this year.
Our company has no individual interest in the matter, inasmuch as every one of our claims is patented, but as we have always aimed to take an active part in anything concerning the welfare of the mining industry we write to request you to support the resolution.
Many of our soldiers who are claim owners are still abroad ; many have only recently returned from service and are energetically engaged in locating themselves again in civil life. To the majority of these we believe the need of this suspension of annual assessment work is as great as it was during the time our country was actively at war. If not inconsistent with your views, we should be glad if you can see your way to support the resolution.
Thanking you in advance and with kindest regards and best wishes, Sincerely,
Geo. A. Stahl, General Manager.
Ohio City, Colo., July 29, 1919. Hon. Edward Taylor,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: I understand a resolution is pending in Congress providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims during this year.
The proposed resolution does not affect this company one way or the other, because practically-all our claims are patented and the assessment has already been done on the few that are unpatented. However, I want to strongly urge the passage of said resolution because conditions in the mining regions of the West fully warrant it.
73 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
The high cost of all sorts of material used in mining, the shortage and tremendous inefficiency of labor and other distressing conditions confronting the mining industry, would work a hardship on prospectors and returning soldiers if they are compelled to do their assessments this year. Many prospectors used up their entire resources in hunting for manganese, tungsten, and other war minerals and are in no position to work their claims this year.
This property is now shut down with the exception of a few lessees because of Adverse conditions confronting the mining industry.
In addition to strongly urging the passage of said resolution, I want to enter a very
vigorous protest against our Government turning over to England or anyone else
Any more silver at $1 per ounce. Unless present adverse conditions are ameliorated
-or silver is permitted to go above $1 per ounce, there will be very little of it produced.
Yours truly, '
Carroll M. Carter, President Carter Mines Co.
Greeley, Colo., July 26, 1919. Edward T. Taylor, M. C,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: Owing to the unprofitable and doubtful outlook for mining and scarcity of labor to perform the work we would like to see a law passed relieving the miners from the necessity of doing the annual labor on mining claims for at least the year of 1919.
Anything that can be done in this line will be appreciated by us, we are, Yours, very respectfully,
Woodruff & Woodruff. By B. F. Woorduff.
Silverton, Colo., July 22, 1919. Hon. Edward T. Taylor,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Taylor: I have been informed that a resolution is pending in Congress providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims for this year. I believe that the emergency which warranted the suspension of work during the war still exists and that great hardship will work on all unpatented-claim owners, as well as the many returning soldiers, if compelled to perform this annual labor, owing to the unsettled condition of the country, together with, labor shortage, extreme high cost of material and supplies, and many other distressing conditions of the mining industry.
I am the owner of several unpatented claims and I personally know of many others who are situated as myself and who are quite anxious to see the resolution, passed.
I feel that the industry will not suffer by the suspension and that the entire community will be greatly benefited by it, and I entreat you to use your influence in the passage of the bill.
With personal regards, I beg to remain, Yours, very truly,
Marion E. Bell.
Silverton, Colo., July 22, 1919. Hon. Edward T. Taylor,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: We understand that there is a resolution pending in Congress providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims this year. As far as our observation takes us, the same conditions which obtained during the war still exist and it would be no more than just that this resolution be passed. Yours, very truly,
Hamlet Mining & Milling Co., PerG. H. Corbet, Manager.
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 79
Denver, Colo., July 21, 1919. Hon. Edward T. Taylor, M. C,
Washington, D. C.
Honorable and Dear Mr. Taylor: I understand that a resolution is pending in Congress providing for the suspension of annual assessment work on unpatented mining claims this year.
I believe that it is almost universally conceded that this bill should be made a law, based principally from the broad standpoint of public policy.
The emergency which warranted the suspension of assessment work on mining claims during the war still exists, and we believe that the public interest generally, the interests of many returning soldiers, and all other persons would be subserved and conserved and that universal justice would be done by the passage of this act.
Labor shortage, the high cost of material and supplies, with other distressing conditions of the industry, undoubtedly justifies and warrants the suspension of assessment work this year.
The mining industry has had many unusual burdens to carry during the war and has failed to get consideration, so far, that it deserves — and it does seem that the interests of the public or all concerned will be well served in this bill.
Assuring you that our Colorado people appreciate the efficient manner in which you are serving them and the whole Nation at large, I am, Yours, very respectfully,
Frank E. Wire.
Spokane, Wash., July 26, 1919. Hon. Edward Taylor,
Washington, D. C,
This association would greatly appreciate any encouragement given assessment exemption measure. Labor here more scarce and more needed other lines than last year. Cost of work so high that claims are not actually benefitted when statutory cost of work is performed. This request is unanimous resolution of large membership.
Northwest Mining Association.
Norwood, Colo., July 28, 1919. Hon. Edward Taylor,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.
It is to the vital interest of the mining industry in San Miguel and western Montrose Counties that resolution now pending in Congress providing for suspension of annual assessments on unpatented mining claims be passed at once. Active products need these men to keep up production and retaining soldiers who are owners of claims do not have the necessary funds to do this assessment. Owners of claims are leaving work to do their assessments so as to hold claims owing to high price of silver. Kindly use your best efforts to Bee this resolution is passed immediately.
D. Lee Staley, County Chairman,
Salida, Colo., July 27, 1919. Hon. E. T. Taylor, M. C,
Washington, D. C.
Please wire at my expense status in Senate and House of resolution to exempt prospectors from annual assessment work, 1919. State who introduced it and kindly mail me copy of resolution, reports of committee, or copies of Congressional Record pertaining. Owners of claims and mine operators strongly favor exemption account of big demand for miners. You did splenaid work on resolution in 1917 and mining fraternity appreciates it.
John M. O'Connell.
The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you now, Mr. Callbreath.
80 Annual Assessment Work On. Mining Claims,
Statement Of Mr. J. F. Callbreath, Secretary American
Mining Congress, Washington, D. C,
Mr. Callbreath. Mr. Chairman, and gentleman of the committee, it is a rather novel r61e for anybody connected with the American Mining Congress to ask for exemption from the doing of assessment work upon a mining claim. I want to say -first that I do not speak for the American Mining Congress, although I am its secretary, because our organization has not spoken upon this subject officially, and therefore what I have to say will be my own personal opinion, tinged, perhaps, by my connection with the work.
On general principals we are opposed to the exemption of claimants from doing assessment work. We believe that the original law was
Mr. Kinkaid (interposing). Pardon me, if you please — so that nobody will be mislead, no one wants any exemption. You don't mean that; you mean the extension of time? You mean that they will have to do the work sometime, this year's work. It is not exemption; thev will have to do their $500 worth of work sometime.
Mr. Callbreath. Oh, yes.
!Mr. Rhodes. Exemption so far as this year's work is concerned.
Mr. Kinkaid. For this year's, but the .same amount of work will have to be done to prove up.
Mr. Welling. It is a suspension; we all mean the same thing.
Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, a suspension of time, but not an exemption from the amount of work that will have to be done ultimately.
Mr. Callbreath. As I said, on general principles, we believe that every claimant should do the assessment work during the year in which his claim is held for him in anticipation of his final patent — in anticipation of getting patent to that land at the termination of the five-year period, but we are now, as I believe, facing a peculiar situation. I believe and agree fully with Congressman Taylor in his statement that this matter should be handled from the big, broad, general standpoint. What is for the best interests of the country at large to-day to take precedence over the question as to what is the best for the individual prospector. We are in a peculiar situation. One year ago to-day, and for the three or four months previous to that, we were in the throws of a terrible conflict. This country found itself with its soldiers in the trenches; without ships sufficient to carry the provisions, supplies, and munitions to protect them; they were in danger of annihilation without the munitions of war which ships were necessary to take to them, and the ships which were needed for that purpose were engaged in hauling from Brazil, manganese; from New Caledonia, chrome; from Spain, pyrites — things absolutely essential in the manufacture of our war materials. We found the Shipping Board and the other boards of the Government here intensely anxious as to just how they might take those ships from the South American trade, importing these minerals, in order that those same ships might be used to carry the food to our s >ldiers in the trenches, and the feeling was so intense that it seemed impossible — it was necessary that those ships should be taken for that purpose, and the question then was, " Where can we get the material to make up this deficiency 1" At that time you gentlemen passed a law providing an appropriation of $50,000,000 for the pur-
Annual Assessment Wobk On Mining Claims. 81
pose of amortizing the special cost of the development of the industries which are necessary to produce these various war necessities.
The Chairman. $10,000,000, wasn't it ?
Mr. Callbreath. No, .$50,000,000. Later by the signing of the armistice, before an administrator had been appointed for the bill — or rather, the same day that the administrator was appointed for the bill — the bill became inoperative, but in the meantime every Government official who had to do with the situation was-appealing to the western prospector, appealing to the men of every State in the Union, to produce those minerals which were absolutely essential to the carrying on of the war. Those minerals had not been produced in this country prior to the war because they could be imported from foreign countries at a cost very much less than the cost of production in this country. So at that time we found that situation and this appeal went forward from every department of the Government to produce these minerals. The west responded nobly to that appeal. It has responded to every appeal which has been made by the Federal Government. To use a war time expression, "it went over the top," and its subscription to the Liberty loan went oyer the top : its subscriptions to the Red Cross went over the top; it met its lull share of tne taxation, which was particularly severe upon the West, and it met every obligation imposed upon it.
During that time these taxes which were paid by westerners made a fund approximately $20,000,000, which was spent for the creation and manufacture of this material which was, to be used in the carrying on of this war. That $20,000,000 was almost entirely spent in the East; a very small percentage of it was spent anywhere in the West, so that the West at the end of the war, finding that it had met all of its obligations to the Government in every possible way; finding that it had got no profit whatever from any of the money which had been spent by the Government, found itself in a way impoverished. Those very men to whom we appealed at that time to produce these minerals are the men who now appeal to you to suspend this assessment work for this year until they get upon their feet again.
We found then a condition that we did not have any magnesite to manufacture the linings of our furnaces, in which our ores had to be smelted, because our magnesite had theretofore been purchased from Austria.
We found we had no manganese, because cheaper manganese could come from Brazil, and we were unable to develop our own deposits.
We found that we had no pyrites because they could be produced — imported from Spain more cheaply. But in the meantime, during that time, the South and the West had demonstrated that this country is able to supply all of those minerals, if the additional cost was provided for. oo that the great question which we have to face in these matters in the situation of to-day, the read jus tment period, is more a question of price than anything else. Why are our prices so high ? We have all kinds of theories, and you gentlemen of the Lower and the Upper Houses are organizing investigations for find out the cause.
Mr. Robsion. If the gentleman can answer that question, I would like to have it.
82 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Callbreath. There are two reasons. One reason which I think will appeal to you as being excellent is that this year we are sending to Europe food supplies estimated at one time to be 20,000,000 tons. The laws of supply and demand always operate just about as effectively as the law of gravitation, and every effort to change that law results in failure. When we take 20,000,000 tons out of the food production of the United States and send it elsewhere, we have created a condition in which the law of supply and demand necessarily creates an increase in price.
There is another reason. The price which is paid for anything depends — its value depends somewhat upon the amount of money in circulation. We have in this country to-day a larger amount of money in circulation than we ever had before, and that goes to that point, because the large amount of circulating medium upon one hand and the shortage of supply upon the other both tend to the same result. Now, what is the situation ? As we find this 20,000,000 tons of our products being sent to foreign markets, our own price of food and living is climbing into the air, and we are now proposing — some people are proposing — that we shall take out of the productive capacity of this Nation several millions of dollars' worth of labor and apply it to useless work. All through the West to-day there is a shortage of labor. I happen to know that farm labor is very short in some of the Western States. I have two farms, one in Utah and one in Colorado, and we are unable to hire any help at any reasonable price for either of them, and at one place we are unable to hire it at any price.
Now, we do not want, as I believe, to take the men who ought to be doing that farm work, who ought to be in Nebraska harvesting the wheat crop, and force those men to go into the mountains and
f protect their claims. It is true that you may say that the men who arm in Nebraska haven't very many mining claims, but labor will find a place where it can earn its living somehow, and I don't believe it is a matter of good policy for this Government now to force any useless work. I believe that the men who are required to do that assessment work might better apply their efforts to the development and the production of foodstuns, of which our markets are so thoroughly depleted by the European exports.
Mr. Rhodes. Will the gentleman permit a question there? What is your opinion as to what labor conditions may be twelve months from this time ?
Mr. Callbreath. I can only hazard a prediction, but my thought is that just so soon as the public has settled itself down to the era of high prices, expecting that to continue upon a fair level, that there will be the most unprecedented prosperity in this country that we have ever seen, and that every possible man will be called to labor.
Mr. Rhodes. Well, that hardly answers the question, as I was thinking of it. Will labor be more plentiful or less plentiful at this time next year ?
Mr. Callbreath. I don't think it will. My belief is that the great world waste, the waste of this war, has so depleted the supply of material that it will be many years before that waste of material has been replaced, and that is the time when men should have a chance to get upon their feet again. It may be equally true that next year labor conditions will be just as bad as they are to-day. 1
Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 83
rather think you are right in that, but the fact will remain that at that time these men will have adjusted themselves; the West will begin again to get some of the money back which was spent in these matters, and there will be a better chance then to meet it.
I want to say to you, gentlemen, that you will not find me again, I believe, even next year, though the conditions of labor are short, asking for this exemption. I would not ask it upon that ground to-day — the shortage of labor — although I believe that is a valid reason for it — but I base it upon the broad general principles that this Government can not afford, this Nation can not afford, to take five or ten million dollars' worth of service and use it for what is apparently at this time a useless expense.
Mr. Taylor. What do you think about the advisability of limiting the number of claims and abolishing the assessment law entirely ?
Mr. Callbreath. For all time?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Callbreath. I do not agree with that. My belief about that, gentlemen, is this: The mining laws of the United States are in a chaotic condition; your committee, or this committee, three years ago defeated a bill which was passed by the Senate providing for a commission to investigate the conditions in the West and to make a complete revision of our mineral laws. I believe still that that should be done. We have laws to-day applying — attempting to apply
The Chairman (interposing). Excuse me; I did not understand that that bill provided a commission to investigate. That bill was simply to recodify the mining laws; it did not provide that the commission shoula go out and investigate.
Mr. Callbreath. I beg pardon; the bill provided that the commission might hold hearings in the West or elsewhere, and to discover exactly the conditions, in order that they might recommend to Congress a bill to meet those conditions.
The Chairman. Do you remember that, Mr. Taylor ?
Mr. Taylor. Yes; it was like both of you say for that matter. It provided for a commission to go out and investigate conditions, ana then to codify the laws from the conditions and the sentiment in various States and mining districts of the West. In other words, it was primarily to codify the laws, but it gave the commission authority to go and personally investigate the sentiment in various States.
The v Chairman. I remember that now. That was in it.
Mr. Callbreath. The placer law, intended only for gold placers, is now applied to the location of phosphates; to the location of oil; to the location of various other minerals for which it was never intended. It was never fitted for those things and it has caused endless trouble and hampered to a great extent western development. But I still believe there should be, not a codification, as Congressman Taylor says, but a revision of those mineral land laws.
Mr. Welling. I may say that $5,000,000 has been spent in Utah since the beginning of the war, under the placer law in developing . potash claims.
Mr. Callbreath. Yes; and nobody knows whether those titles are good or not.
Mr. Welling. The law never contemplated that potash should be developed under the placer mining law.
Mr. Taylor. No; it is a misfit, very likely, all the way around.
84 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Mr. Callbreath. On the cjuestion of oil shale — and I will say that the oil shale industry with its oil and its by-products is one of the great industries of the future — and I say that as applied to the steel industry. It is a great industry as compared with tne steel industry, and will be in the niture. The law provides now for the location of a lode or the location of the placer. Oil shale is neither lode nor placer, and it requires the greatest stretch of the imagination to assume that the law can apply to it in any way; yet many claims have been taken up under that and we understand that one concern is now putting in a plant — about to put in a plant — costing $15,000,- 000, to undertake to work out processes by which the oil and the other by-products — dyestuffs and others — may be extracted from the oil shale. It is a wonderful industry of the future, but to-day it has not so developed that there is any possibility of anybody holding a claim excepting the capitalist. Now attempts are being made by men to hold oil shale claims, but neither law justifies a patent, in my judgment, either the placer law or the lode claim law, and therefore just what will be done I don't know, but I do think that to ask those men to do development work upon an oil shale claim, when there has been no process yet developed that is recognized as being a successful process for extraction of those values, is to my mind a thing which ought not to be done. I believe there should be a different law as applied to those things, and Congress ought to work out some proposition along that line.
But all that is foreign to the question. The question is whether these prospectors of the West who last year exhausted themselves in an attempt to produce war minerals, shall this year be forced to do useless assessment work upon the claims which were then taken up.
Some question has been raised here as to possibility of the grabbing of claims in large numbers by virtue of this exemption. Every location — and this proposed bill has nothing to do with locations — every location requires that a certain amount of development work shall be done — in former times the idea was a 10-foot prospect hole. That 10-foot prospect hole in the olden times was supposed to cost $100; usually it cost a little more than that, but a prospect hole, which cost $100 five years ago will cost $200 to-day; so therefore there is 100 per cent penalty against any new locations of mining claims at this time, do I don't think we need to have any fear of anybody grabbing claims except where the original prospectors, poor men, are forced to surrender their claim to men who can afford to put up the money and take advantage of their work already done.
I feel that the passage of this bill is justified at this time. As I said, I "have never before felt, except during war times, that there was any reason for any such suspension of work. I have had many disputes with our own members along that line, but I believe now that there is a just and valid reason why Mr. Smith's bill should be passed, and I hope you gentlemen will so consider it.
The Chairman. Now, Mr. Lawrie, we will hear you.
STATEMENT OF H. N. LAWRIE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY OF THE STATE OF OREGON.
Mr. Lawrie. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I happen to be presently connected with the American Mining Congress. My resignation as chairman of the Oregon Bureau of Mines Com-
Ann-Ual Assessment Work On Mining Claims. 85
mission has not been accepted by Gov. Olcott, and I should prefer that these remarks be entered in the record as coming from me in that capacity.
For seven years I have been chairman of the Oregon Bureau of Mines and Geology, an organization whidh is supported by the State and operates decidedly in the interest of the mining industry of the State.
Mr. Kinkaid. The State of Oregon, you say ?
Mr. Lawrie. Yes, sir. For 15 years I have been consulting geologist in the Northwest, and I have been over Nearly every foot of that territory and have come in contact with the prospectors, appraising assessment work and advising them in connection therewith.
At the time th&t the United States became engaged in this war it was very apparent that the State of Oregon was going to become a producer of chrome. At that time there were a large number of prospectors engaged in the doing of prospecting work in the more remote districts 01 the State, and we did not feel that their efforts, continuously performed in that direction, would assist us in the production of chrome. So, as a matter of fact, the original draft of this bill which is now in operation granting these men relief from the assessment work clause of the law was formulated in our office for the purpose of relieving these prospectors from that obligation, in order that they might be brought down into the chrome areas of the State of Oregon, and that their prospecting experience might be used in connection with the discovery of chrome deposits, which would make it more readily available and meet the demands of the Government. Now that is exactly what took place. These prospectors did leave their work. Even "before the bill was passed we realized that it was appealing to the country at large and that.it probably would pass, and we made a determined effort to get them down there into the chrome areas, with the result that the State of Oregon produced onethird of the domestic chrome of the United States during the war period.
Now these men, as Mr. Callbreath has already indicated, are embarrassed financially. Their credit — what little credit they had — is exhausted and the possibility of their obtaining grub stakes to continue their assessment work this year is very remote. These men, some 2,000 of them, I should say, to make a rough estimate of the ones that transferred themselves from other locations, to the chrome area, have probably done a good deal of work on their claims that they are holding — perhaps two or three or four years — they may be one year away From patent. This will work an extreme hardship on them. If they are unable to do their assessment work this year it will immediately place them at the mercy of the capitalists that may come in and take advantage of those four years' work and arbitrarily employ the labor and perform the duty of assessment work. Consequently it is not just that these men, under the present circumstances, should be forced to do their assessment work in order to validate their claims.
Mr. Robsion. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Where a claim is abandoned — say there has been four years' work done on it and it is reentered — is tne new man then required to do five years' work ?
Mr. Lawrie. I think that he initiates his claim as though no work had been done upon it whatsoever.
86 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims.
Now the matter has been brought up that the operation of this act has created stagnation in the development of mining in the United States. I would like to call your attention to the fact in that connection that all these war metals have been produced — many of them particularly in the West — under the location notice on forest reserves, and that the amount of work done on these claims has been far in excess of the assessment work required, their having been large tonnages of the ore removed and shipped for the use of the Government.
Mr. Kinkaid. Now that is chrome ?
Mr. Lawrie. Chrome, manganese, and tungsten. The pyrite, I understand, was more or less developed on privately owned land in the South and not under the mineral act.
Mr. Kinkaid. And what is this other metal that they were producing ?
Mr. Lawrie. Manganese?
Mr. Kinkaid. No; another one still.
Mr. Lawrie. Molybdenum ?
Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; what about that?
Mr. Lawrie. Well, I think there is one mine in Colorado — one property in Colorado. That represents, however, a very small part of tne war minerals production.
Now, aside from the war metal development specifically, I know of one particular case in the State of Oregon where 30 claims were staked to discover a disseminated copper deposit. Work on that has been progressing continuously, despite the fact that they might have had relief under this act.
. The point has also been raised to limit the number of claims. Now that is geologically an impossibility without doing an injustice, because, as you know, the progress of mining depends largely upon the operation of large, low-grade deposits. These deposits cover tremendous areas, and in order that anyone should be able to do development work on them at all, he must necessarily have enough acreage under his direct control so that he may make development worth while.
Mr. Kinkaid. And then they can make their development work in one place upon the entire property.
Mr. Lawrie. They can do that, but generally speaking, with a disseminated deposit, work is better distributed than it is in the lode deposit, because of the fact that they have got to drill and average up a tremendously large tonnage by that means. Now there are a tremendous number of properties, particularly in the gold mining class, that have exhausted their reserves because of the economic
Pressure to which the gold mining industry has been subjected. 'hese are well-defined properties from a geological standpoint, and every day of development work that would be put in in the exploration of an ore deposit that has, so far as present development is concerned, become exhausted, would bear fruit, would produce ore. That in turn would go to a mill which has already teen erected and which would turn out a product which is absolutely a necessity. Now it becomes a question as to whether it is advisable to now postpone the assessment work on the assumption that this prospect may take three or four or five years to mature. Probably 10 per cent out of 100 of the prospects now under claim would mature as mines. I think that is very liberal, and it delays, in other words, the point of
Annual Assessment Wokk On Mining Claims. 87
production three or four years hence before the fruit of the present year's labor would bear fruit. Now on these other properties — many of our gold properties — that condition exists. There is a shortage of labor and they must extend their development work or the gold mining industry will practically be eliminated in the course of three or tour years. A mine naturally has to have a fixed ore reserve upon which to draw in order to maintain operations, and when that reaches a low point operations have got to cease. They have always got to keep extending, and it is to keep the extension of those fixed ore reserves that the release of this prospecting labor now could be well utilized. It would also offer necessary financial relief to these prospectors, in order that they might recoup their condition and be able to perform their assessment work next year.
In connection with the decline in gold production, it gives me pleasure to submit to you a review of this subject which graphically shows the decline and the reasons therefor, published in the Engineering and Mining Journal, June 7, 1919.
If there are questions that the members of the committee wish to ask, I should be very glad to answer them.
Mr. Rhodes. In your opinion, would the passage of this act in any way stimulate the production of gold ?
Mr. Lawkie. I think it would be felt directly, sir.
Mr. Rhodes. Then on what ground do you base the justification for this proposed law, that it would stimulate the industry, or as a matter of justice under present labor conditions ?
Mr. Lawrie. It would stimulate industry with respect to present day output, for which we have great need.
Mr. Rhodes. Just one other question while the gentleman is on the floor. You have spoken as to the placer claims and lode claims, and have also referred to disseminated bodies. Are these bodies of disseminated ore subject to the same laws that the placer bodies and lodes are, or is there still a different law to which this particular deposit is subject.
Mr. Lawrie. They are included under either placer or lode locations. There are disseminated deposits where actual lodes transverse the deposit itself, and the impregnation of these minerals has become more dissipated in the larger mass, and then they are subject, I believe, under that condition, to placer location. But I think most operators, you will find, have filed on the transverse lodes that go through these tremendous deposits, lode locations, while the balance of it is placer locations.
Mr. Rhodes. You spoke of the necessity for large areas-
Mr. Welling (interposing). Lode locations and placer locations are made under identically the same sections of our mining law, are they not?
Mr. Lawrie. Well, the specification is altogether different as to the manner of location. A prospector is entitled to bat one claim and an extension claim on the original discovery on the lode location, and that is all that he can have on that lode.
Mr. Rhodes. I asked that question for the reason that it has been stated there is a difference in the size of the placer claim and the size of the lode claim, and you have spoken of the necessity of holding large areas, and I wanted to know if the question of disseminated ore would in any way be involved as to the size of the claim.
88 Annual Assessment Work On Mining Claims,
Mr. Lawrie. Well, which ever the geological condition provided; that is, if there were a number of transverse veins and the area could be held by lode location, it would be simple a matter of expanding that lode location to cover a large area whicfi would become tne bftats of a commercial operation. That is, a large area and a large volume of ore of low grade has got to be at the disposition of the operator in order to make a success of the operation. So, whichever way we might take the mineral, it would involve the staking of a large area in order to permit him to go ahead and make his exploration development.
Mr. Kinkaid. What is the law in regard to incorporation, where you have a number of lode claims and are doing development work at one point for several claims i
Mr. Lawrie. Wherever it can be shown that the development work concentrated at any one point in the property or upon any one claim in the property is of equal advantage to the development of the other claims that are staked on the same lode, that is permitted. But evidence has got to be shown in the proof that that is the ca3e.
Mr. Kinkaid. Now, the individual locator on a lode is allowed how much?
Mr. Lawrie. He is allowed one claim and a location extension claim. That gives him 3,000 feet on the lode.
Mr. Kinkaid. Fifteen hundred feet being one claim.
Mr. Lawrie. Yes, it gives him two claims, 3,000 feet. Now, all other locations have got to be staked in other names.
Mr. Kinkaid. You mean the original locator is entitled to that on each location on the same lode. You say that each locator is entitled to one claim and an extension claim ?
Mr. Lawrie. Well, it usually works out this way, that the prospector that makes the original location on the lode is entitled to these two claims and he takes them.
Mr. Kinkaid. But subsequent comers are only entitled to oae claim, or are they entitled to two ?
Mr. Lawrie. They are entitled to one; but if they are going to be fooled into thinking they have discovered another lode
Mr. Kinkaid (interposing). But they are not going to be fooled. Each one stands on the same basis, subsequent comers on that same lode?
Mr. Lawrie. I think if the lode is discovered at another point be would be entitled to his original discovery. Yes, I think that would be held.
Mr. Kinkaid. That is the way the Silver King was discovered in your State, Mr. Welling.
Mr. Welling. Yes.
Mr. Lawrie. I thank you very much, gentlemen.
The Chairman. Well, "gentlemen, I guess that concludes the hearings. We will now go into executive session on the bill.
('Whereupon, at 11.40 o'clock a. m., the committee went into executive session.)