Search Documents

By E. D. Gardner

APPARENTLY the widespread agitation for the codification of our mining laws has had its effect, and it is quite possible that Congress will take up the question during this present session. The greatest objection to our present statutes pertaining to metalliferous deposits seems to be directed against the law of the apex. Those who are not in favor of changing this law are very far in the minority and they apparently realize that it is useless to urge its retention. Next in importance to the repeal of the law of the apex, seems to be a widespread advocacy for the repeal of the law requiring discovery of mineral before a valid location of a mining claim can be made. To a lesser extent there appears to be a desire to have the law changed so as to allow patent for claims without mineral discoveries. The purpose of this article is to review the arguments in favor of the proposed change of the discovery requirement, to show some of the evils that may be expected to result therefrom, and to consider whether a system may be devised to correct the undesirable features of the present law in this respect and at the same time not expose the mining fraternity and the general public to the evils which would result from the repeal of this fundamental requirement. Under the law as at present framed, the validity of a mining location is dependent upon the fact of discovery of mineral within the boundaries of the land claimed.

Jan 9, 1916

By E. D. Gardner

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

Jan 12, 1916

By D Beahm

Introduction The Energy Metals Corporation (EMC) holds numerous mineral properties in the northern portion of the Great Divide Basin including the JAB Property, one of several potential properties being planned for development as a satellite facility to the greater Antelope Uranium Project. A National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report has been completed for the JAB property. This report estimates total measured and indicated mineral resources on the property totaling 3,555,022 pounds U3O8 contained in 2,400,875 tons at an average grade of 0.073 % U3O8 at a .25 GT cutoff in accordance with CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves. The JAB Property is located in Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23, Township 26 North, Range 94 West, approximately Latitude 42o 14’ North and Longitude 108o 00’ West (Figure 1, Location Map). This property consists of unpatented mining lode claims and Wyoming State mineral leases comprising approximately 2,100 acres.

Jan 1, 2007

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1951

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1950

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1947