cover and to develop for a period of 2 years after making the application, for a fee of 50 cents for each 20 acres. We also have leases, and if a location exists, then a lease cannot be issued except to the person holding the location.

We do have some conflict with the present Federal laws. I'd like to tell you just briefly about a few of these. Most of the filings are made, as you men know, from a monument and filed with the recorder in the county in which it is located, and too often there's no check made to find whether that filing is on State land or not. Then a person comes into our office and asks if there's a lease or if he can make location. If there is none in our records we're apt to give him a lease or location, and we find sometimes a filing has been made according to Federal law but on State lands, so we'd like to have some clarification and some place to check to see whether or not there have been filings made on these lands. We also find the case where a person filed a mining claim prior to the admission of the State, and after a survey was made, several people still feel they own the land in question.

In one case in Cassia County we have a claim made in 1888, mined some time and abandoned; later the State leased the land for grazing, and it had a spring on the mining claim; now we have a man who said that's land that's mineral in character, and he's fenced the spring. Mr. Goldy and I are trying to determine who owns the darn thing.

We have a case in Clearwater County that was listed for selection, a clear list was made on it, a Federal examiner inspected it, said it was nonmineral in character, and now we find a man was on there working a mining claim at the time the inspection was made, and that he supposedly has taken off several hundred thousands of gold. If it's State land we should have the royalty; if it's Federal land he should get a patent. We have the same thing in Lemhi County, an old claim sold two or three times, and we're just trying to determine whether or not the land is mineral in character. You men all know a lot of times land has been filed on which is not mineral in character, and we feel if the Department of the Interior can prove that it is mineral in character, then we'll have to abandon our rights and select other lands. Those are briefly some of the problems we have in the conflict between State and Federal land administration.

We don't want very much; as the State land board we just want full control of the lands granted to us. We don't think that's unreasonable. If there's any way these laws can be clarified so all of us know where we stand, and when a man comes in our office we can tell him what we can and can't do, it will be very helpful to us as the State land board. Thanks for your attention.

Mr. GOLDY. Just one point I'd like clarified: Can any individual still locate on State lands and get a patent to the surface as well as the subsurface?

Mr. WOOZLEY. No.

Mr. GOLDY. He can only get the mineral right?

Mr. WOOZLEY. That's right.

Mr. GOLDY. And I want to say as a comment it will be a little while before we can get some of those matters straightened out, because as I think I told some of you gentlemen once before, we have one mineral examiner for Oregon, Idaho, and Washington, and he has quite a few years of backlog ahead of him. We don't have Ed's work scheduled

in that backlog yet. It will probably increase the present 6 manyears backlog to about 12.

I would like now to call on Mr. J. W. DeSouza.

Mr. DeSouza, do you have a few brief remarks you want to make?

STATEMENT OF J. W. DeSOUZA, REPRESENTING THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF OREGON

Mr. DESOUZA. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen: I hadn't intended to speak here, my name is not on the agenda; my purpose in being here was principally to be that of an observer. I have received permission to be here by the Oregon State Highway Commission, but it should be clearly understood that I am not the official representative of the commission.

My principal work with the Oregon State Highway Commission is connected with legal matters and in connection with the acquisition of rights-of-way and material sites and so forth for the Oregon State highways. The operation of the commission is State-wide, and it amounts to considerable sums of money; it probably will be in excess of $2,000,000 for this year. Now, all over the State we are continually running into mining claims where rights-of-way for State highways are desired, or lands are necessary for other purposes. Most of the problems have been resolved without too geat difficulty.

However, this last year we did run upon a situation that was quite complex or quite perplexing. There is a project south of Canyonville in Douglas County that's being improved in cooperation with the Federal Government. Part of it will be constructed by the Public Roads Administration as a forest-road project, and a portion of it. will be constructed by the State highway commission as a Federal-aid project. In connection with that it is the duty of the Oregon State Highway Commission to acquire the rights-of-way for the projects. On a short area immediately south of Canyonville and in what is known as Canyon Creek the highway location hit five monuments. Two of them were bare land with no improvements. With one we only took a portion of it; the settlement was $25. The other we took the entire claim and the settlement was only $250, which indicates that as a mining claim the land was not particularly valuable. However, there were three properties involved; on two of them there was. no apparently visible mining development, but there had been homes. built on those two claims. The third claim did not show any particular evidence of mining development, but a quite extensive auto court and store building had been constructed on the property which was deriving its revenue from public-highway travel. Now, on those three properties which definitely were not devoted to mining uses the total expense to the State highway commission was $19,675. Of that amount $4,000 was paid for land for the three claims; $15,675 was paid for improvements which were placed on there, the major part of which in the auto court was openly and admittedly not for mining-development purposes. It was purely a commercial venture that was not connected with mining at all.

Now, I am not attempting to suggest any solution of the matter, but problems of similar nature are continually arising where the

63829-50-ser. 24- -8

public itself has to come back and pay sums for improvements on land that in my opinion were entirely foreign to the uses and purposes for which the original mining laws were passed.

Congressman WHITE. Just one question, Mr. Chairman, were those patented claims?

Mr. DESOUZA. Nonpatented.

Mr. GOLDY. Nonpatented claims, Congressman. Is Mr. Orell here? Mr. WEBSTER. No; he is not.

Mr. GOLDY. I take it you're representing him?

Mr. WEBSTER. That's right.

Mr. GOLDY. I don't know whether he wanted to say anything at this time or not. We have just a few minutes before we go on; I just wanted to clean up any of the public officials that might be here.

Mr. WEBSTER. I'm L. T. Webster, and we have no comment to make; thanks.

Mr. GOLDY. Well, I'd like at this time then to go on and call upon the representatives of the mining industry for their statement, and I'd like to call first on Mr. Therrett Towles. He's not down here on our agenda. Mr. Rowland King could not be here today, and we've made some adjustments in our agenda, and from experience, having met with Mr. Towles, I know what an able, competent lawyer he is, and we're very glad now to hear from Mr. Towles.

STATEMENT OF THERRETT TOWLES

MINING LAW PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. TowLES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. For the record, I guess you have my name. I have practiced law for a good many years, and am now living in Spokane, Wash., and for about 25 years lived in the State of Idaho, practicing law at Wallace, Idaho, in the Coeur d'Alene mining district.

Because of difficulties which I as an attorney have had with the land department covering a period of more than 40 years, in which there has been at times long delays by the department in acting upon mineral patents, and the rigid interpretation by the department at different times of the discovery statute, causing adverse reports against claims by the mineral examiner, or contests involving the sufficiency of discoveries on mining claims applied for patents, I suggested last January in a letter to Mr. Charles F. Willis, chairman of the Public Lands Committee of the National Minerals Advisory Council, the following remedy to relieve the situation. These are my own ideas on this:

First, to amend the discovery statute requiring the location of a mining claim upon a vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, and so forth, or other valuable deposits, so as to provide that the term "other valuable deposits" shall include a lode or ledge appearing in vein manner only at or near the surface that is similar in character to veins in the same mining district that have produced valuable ore at depth, and shall also include nonmetalliferous as well as metalliferous deposits found in veins of rock in place.

Secondly, to enact a special statute such as has been done in the case of coal deposits and oil lands, that would provide for the location, exploration, and purchase of lands containing a horizontal vein or

FIGURE 5.-Cobalt mining camp at Blackbird located in Idaho's primitive area. Underground explorations have disclosed vast tonnages

of cobalt ore to supply an 800-ton mill now under construction by Howe Sound Co.

public itself has to come back and pay sums for improvements on Îand that in my opinion were entirely foreign to the uses and purposes for which the original mining laws were passed.

Congressman WHITE. Just one question, Mr. Chairman, were those patented claims?

Mr. DESOUZA. Nonpatented.

Mr. GOLDY. Nonpatented claims, Congressman. Is Mr. Orell here? Mr. WEBSTER. No; he is not.

Mr. GOLDY. I take it you're representing him?

Mr. WEBSTER. That's right.

Mr. GOLDY. I don't know whether he wanted to say anything at this time or not. We have just a few minutes before we go on; I just wanted to clean up any of the public officials that might be here.

Mr. WEBSTER. I'm L. T. Webster, and we have no comment to make; thanks.

Mr. GOLDY. Well, I'd like at this time then to go on and call upon the representatives of the mining industry for their statement, and I'd like to call first on Mr. Therrett Towles. He's not down here on our agenda. Mr. Rowland King could not be here today, and we've made some adjustments in our agenda, and from experience, having met with Mr. Towles, I know what an able, competent lawyer he is, and we're very glad now to hear from Mr. Towles.

STATEMENT OF THERRETT TOWLES

MINING LAW PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. TowLES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. For the record, I guess you have my name. I have practiced law for a good many years, and am now living in Spokane, Wash., and for about 25 years lived in the State of Idaho, practicing law at Wallace, Idaho, in the Coeur d'Alene mining district.

Because of difficulties which I as an attorney have had with the land department covering a period of more than 40 years, in which there has been at times long delays by the department in acting upon mineral patents, and the rigid interpretation by the department at different times of the discovery statute, causing adverse reports against claims by the mineral examiner, or contests involving the sufficiency of discoveries on mining claims applied for patents, I suggested last January in a letter to Mr. Charles F. Willis, chairman of the Public Lands Committee of the National Minerals Advisory Council, the following remedy to relieve the situation. These are my own ideas on this:

First, to amend the discovery statute requiring the location of a mining claim upon a vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, and so forth, or other valuable deposits, so as to provide that the term "other valuable deposits" shall include a lode or ledge appearing in vein manner only at or near the surface that is similar in character to veins in the same mining district that have produced valuable ore at depth, and shall also include nonmetalliferous as well as metalliferous deposits found in veins of rock in place.

Secondly, to enact a special statute such as has been done in the case of coal deposits and oil lands, that would provide for the location, exploration, and purchase of lands containing a horizontal vein or