The Antecedent Mineral Discovery Requirement (b140eb82-9141-423c-8cee-cf70e9412ea5)

VICTOR G. HILLS, Denver, Colo. (communication to the Secretary*).¬If anyone advocates the abolition of the antecedent mineral discovery requirement for the purpose of making it easier to secure title to public land, I hasten to say that I am not of that number. I am in Hearty accord with all that Mr. Gardner has to say in regard to easy patenting as a handicap to small camps, and that in general it acts to retard the mining industry. And the following sentences I want to repeat in order to emphasize and endorse them, "None of the writers on this subject seem to have taken into consideration the effect amending the law pertaining to mineral discovery will have upon the Government's administration of the public land. It must be borne in mind that this land belongs absolutely to the people of the United States as a whole, and their interest must be considered. It is not a no-man's land, as some people would appear to believe." However, I believe that the discovery prerequisite should be abolished, because it fails to effect the protection for which it was designed, and I look for other provisions that will better serve the purpose. We propose to abolish the law of apex not because the theory is objectionable but because the question of physical fact gives rise to never ending litigation. Now the design of antecedent mineral discovery is good; the court rulings are unobjectionable; but when it comes to the physical fact this requirement is second only to the apex law as a healthy litigation breeder. The only circumstance that has prevented the pre-discovery lawsuits from becoming as famous and as: expensive as the apex