Bulletin Volume 92-103 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 Excerpt: ...it being well enough to permit the prospector to seek mineral where he will. Mr. Parker's discussion on this is'pertinent. 2. To require a claim of 40 acres seems less satisfactory than to make that a maximum for one claim, leaving 10 acres as a permissible minimum; and instead of requiring a large square, permit as many as four 10-acre square units to be placed in a row, thus giving: considerable latitude in shape and size of claim. Having this latitude, conformity with legal sub-divisions would be less objectionable, and even attractive in the surveyed areas; further, in unsurveyed areas the exclusive use of north and south and east and west lines would facilitate subsequent reconcilement with the public survey on the occasion of the official survey for patent. I think it well worth while and practicable to avoid the infinite criss-crossing of claims. 3. Mr. Gardner's discussion shows the necessity of discovery at least antecedent to patent, if not to valid location. Permitting later discovery of mineral coupled with the requirement of full $100 worth of work each year beginning with initiation of claim, compulsory recording of each year's assessment, and heavy penalties for fraudulent affidavits might form a satisfactory procedure. The demand for record in the U. S. Land Office seems impracticable, these offices being in general too remote; such a record without the prior requirement of official survey (even in surveyed areas corroboration as to location is necessary) would be valueless, and worse; being dangerous in attempting to give something that it could not give without better machinery than has been suggested. Most locations originate through individual special knowledge of vacant ground, and that knowledge may be expected to be more accurate than...