deposit, called blanket veins, and provide for location of larger areas than 20 acres in one claim. This probably would not grant apex or extralateral rights, but would be in the nature of the crown grants of mineral land in Canada.

Third, to enact a statute that would require the Department of the Interior to act upon each application for patent within a limited period of time, with a provision that if action be not taken in such period of time, such delay shall constitute an approval of the patent application, and that patent shall issue forthwith to the applicant.

Fourth, to enact a statute that if during the pendency of a mineral application the Department of the Interior finds grounds involving the sufficiency of discoveries or the character of the land that might result in cancellation of the entry on said grounds, that specific charges be filed so that the applicant may have a hearing on same, or if applicant so desires, he may be permitted to furnish additional evidence of mineral showing. I have found in a number of cases that the Department does at times file contests and at other times hold the mineral showing insufficient, and I believe that in such cases there should be a contest filed in every case.

Fifth, enact a statute that if the Secretary of the Interior makes a final order in an application for patent for mineral lands sustaining the charges of the Department or the Forest Service, or holding the discoveries invalid or insufficient, the mineral applicant shall have the right to obtain a review of such order on the record in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which such lands are situated, and that all proceedings in the Department of the Interior be stayed pending such appeal.

If such a statute were enacted as suggested in the preceding paragraph, a final review could be secured by competent and impartial Federal judges of the western States and not by employees and appointees of the very bureau which is making the attack upon the application.

In all the difficulties that have been caused by the Department's strict enforcement of the Federal discovery statute on mining claims, I am reminded of a statement made in 1892 in a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Iron Silver Mining Co. case (36 L. Ed. 201), in a case from the Leadville mining district in Colorado, in determining that title to portions of a horizontal vein or deposit, called blanket veins, may be acquired under the Federal statutes concerning veins, lodes, and so forth, as follows:

The fact that so many patents have been obtained under these sections, and that so many applications are still pending, is a strong reason against a new and contrary ruling. That which has been accepted as law and acted upon by that mining community for such a length of time, should not be adjudged wholly a mistake and put entirely aside because of difficulties in the application of some minor provisions to the peculiarities of this vein or deposit.

I thank you.

Mr. GOLDY. Thank you, Mr. Towles. I hope if you have to run off you can get back and join us for the discussion later, Mr. Towles. I'd like to call on Mr. Donald A. Callahan, president of the Callahan Consolidated Mining Co., of Wallace, Idaho, and a prominent member of the Idaho Mining Association, and I believe, what was it, were you chairman of the resolution committee of the mining congress, Mr. Callahan?

STATEMENT OF DONALD A. CALLAHAN, PRESIDENT OF THE CALLAHAN CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. AND MEMBER OF IDAHO MINING ASSOCIATION

Mr. CALLAHAN. I admit it. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the discussion which has taken place so far has been confined with the exception of Mr. Towles to some of the abuses that have grown up apparently under the present mining laws. Now, let's just take a brief view at how those laws came into being: In the first place, prior to 1866 we had no Federal mining laws governing the location and appropriation of mineral lands, and up to that time, and particularly during the period of the discovery of gold in California and the consequent very active mining that took place, the rules governing mining were largely the democratic way of doing things in the United States. They were made by the local districts where those discoveries were made, and each one of those local mining districts had its own. body of laws or custom or whatever you might call it which would govern the location, operation, and so forth, and the rights of the people who had located those mining claims.

Then in 1866 the first statute was passed, and in 1872 the statute under which locations are made at the present time was passed. That's a long time ago. There's been no change in that law since that time, so naturally, of course, there have probably been many times when some corrections might have been made, but there has always been this difficulty in the making of corrections to a basic law such as that, that is, the fear of those who are interested in the best kind of laws that advantage might be taken of some revision of the laws to bring about a situation which would be highly undesirable in the development of the mineral resources of this country.

Now, let's take a look at that just a moment. You have all agreed, all of you who have spoken here today, no matter what group you represented, you have all stated you appreciate and understand and want to promote the production of minerals and metals in the United States. Every citizen of this country should be highly in favor of that. That's the desired end, and let's not forget that. When we're considering all of this matter of this abuse or that discrepancy, let's always consider the main objective. The main objective of our mining laws and their administration should be both from the standpoint of our national economy and our national safety the production of metals and minerals within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America.

That's of importance to every citizen. That's of importance not only to the mining industry, but it's important to everybody that has a stake in this country, important to you sheepmen, you cattlemen; it's extremely important to all of you who own something that you want to have protected and that must be protected under the laws of this Nation and under the power and the strength of this Nation, because we have found in this metalliferous age in which we live that there's nothing so important in the time of emergency as the production of metals. We're living in a metal age. We're living in an age when metals and minerals are more important than they ever were, even at the time that this statute of 1872 was passed. Let's bear that in mind to start with.

Now then, as I say, since that 1872 statute was passed which gave this right for a location of certain claims, defining the size of them, and providing for the means by which those claims might be patented and so forth, we have been operating under that. There have been certain abuses here and there; certain advantages have been taken, perhaps, of those things, but those are not the result of what so many of you have been pleased to call legitimate mining. I don't know what is meant by legitimate mining. Legitimate mining is going into the earth and taking out some wealth that never existed on the face of the earth before and putting it to the uses for which it is intended and for which it is to be utilized by the people of this Nation. Any of that is legitimate mining. How do you determine when legitimate mining begins?

Well, I live up in the Coeur d'Alene mining district. These abuses that you speak of here, all of you cattlemen, sheepmen, recreation people, and all of that, don't prevail up there, so I'm not so familiar perhaps with some of these instances, and remember, I want you to pay attention to this, that these are isolated instances that have been cited here that of course should be corrected, we'll agree to that, but they should not be corrected in such a way that they will materially interfere with the main objective, the production of metals and minerals for our national economy and our national safety and security in the world. That above all things we must bear in mind, that nothing shall be done in any revision of the mining laws that takes place to interfere with that objective, because it's important, extremely important. We found out how important it was in the last World War. We found out how important it was in the First World War, and God forbid that we shall ever have another war such as that, but if we do, it will be even more important.

Now then, the question remains; you've heard a good deal here today that these lands of the United States, these public lands of the United States, should be put to multiple use. That's a very highsounding phrase. The lands should be put to the use for which they will return the greatest benefit to all concerned and to the Nation, and that they should be used for the purpose for which they are best intended. I don't think any of us will quarrel with that, but if we extended it that far, and if we went into it as wholeheartedly as some of you have proposed, we'd be mining in your national parks, and that isn't permitted at the present time, is it, Congressman, so even in that matter of multiple use we must use reason. We must understand what it means and how far it goes.

Now then, some others have suggested that there be a division of surface and subsurface rights. I think Mr. Woozley in his presentation indicated some of the difficulties that might arise if we begin to separate surface and subsurface rights on mining claims, but I don't see, I'm quite frank to say this even aside from the fact of whatever interest I may have in the mining industry, I don't see why a miner who makes a valid location and appropriation of public lands under the laws existing should be any different from any other. He should own the land down through to China if it goes there, and besides that, there are the insurmountable difficulties that arise when you commence to separate the surface from the subsurface rights in mining claims. Let's take the case of the man who goes out to locate. There aren't very many, at least in our district now, at the present time, there