theory between the two acts. By this act of 1872 there was also granted to the owners of "one lode" patents, or locations, all lodes other than the one originally located, with the right to follow them in depth. It may also be observed that the act of 1866 applied to claims upon lodes, or veins, of quartz, or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper. With reference to claims located prior thereto, the act of 1872 added to the list of metallic substances named lead, tin, and "other valuable deposits. The act also contained rules for the determination of controversies between claimants of cross lodes and those uniting on the dip, and other minor details, all of which will be considered at the proper time. 872. Changes made with regard to other claims.— No radical changes in the method of acquiring title to placers and other forms of deposit not in place were made by the act; but the quantity of ground which might be acquired by an individual was limited to twenty acres. The act is silent.as.to.the quantity which might be taken by an association of persons. Judge Hallett was of the opinion that the one-hundred-andsixty-acre limitation in this respect contained in the act of 1870. remained unrepealed.1 Be that as it may, the Revised Statutes re-enacted this provision of the act of 1870.2 Provisions were also made for obtaining titles to lodes known to exist within placers, and reserving such lodes from the operation of the placer patents, where they were not claimed by the placer applicant, a subject upon which the act of 1870 was silent.3 St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Kemp, Fed. Cas., No. 12,239A. Rev. Stats., § 2330. Where entry and payment has been made under the act of 1870, the decision of the land department is conclusive that the land was placer, and that there were no known lodes." Crane's Gulch Placer M. Co. v. Scherrer, 134 Cal. 350, 86 Am. St. Rep. 279, 66 Pac. 487. 8 73. New provisions affecting both classes of claims. -The act of 1872 went beyond the preceding legislation in many details. It fixed the amount of annual work to be performed in order to maintain the integrity of locations made both before and after the passage of the act. It provided for the marking of the boundaries of claims, prescribed the contents of records where local rules required record, and the conditions under which forfeiture might be worked. The proceedings to obtain patent and the method of asserting and determining adverse claims were much more elaborate than in the preceding act, as well as much more satisfactory. 74. Tunnels and millsites.-The act also provided a method of acquiring title to non-mineral land for the purpose of a millsite, either in connection with a located lode or where used by the owner of a mill or reduction works. It also incorporated a provision with reference to tunnels as a means of discovering blind lodes and securing certain rights on the discovered lodes to the locator and projector of the tunnel. These subjects will be fully discussed in their appropriate place. 275. Legislation subsequent to the act of 1872.-— Several amendments were made to the original act and some supplemental legislation of a minor character is to be noted before closing this historical review. A brief enumeration of these acts is all that will be here required. The act of February 18, 1873,1 excepted Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnnesota from the operation of the general mining laws. Mineral lands in these states, with the exception of salines,2 are subject to entry under agricultural land laws.3 117 Stats. at Large, p. 465; C. M. L. 23. 3 United States v. Omdahl, 25 L. D. 157. The acts of March 1, 1873,1 and June 6, 1874,2 extended the time for the performance of annual labor on claims located prior to the act of 1872; and the act of January 22, 1880,3 fixed a uniform time for the performance of labor upon all claims located subsequent to the act of 1872.4 The act of March 3, 1873,5 excepted Missouri and Kansas, and that of March 3, 1883, exempted Alabama, from the operation of the general mining acts. The act of January 12, 1877,7 in relation to salines; the act of June 3, 1878,8 in relation to timber cutting, and an act passed on the same day," commonly known as "the "stone and timber act," and the amendment to the latter act, passed August 4, 1892; 10 the act of February 11, 1897, specifically authorizing the location of petroleum lands under the placer mining laws;11 the act passed in 1900, providing a code for Alaska, and providing a method for acquiring beach claims; 12 the act of January 31, 1901, extending the mining laws to saline lands; 13 and the act of 1902 relating to the Philippine islands, and outlining a system for locating and patenting mining claims therein,14 are the only other enactments during the period that are worthy of note. '17 Stats. at Large, p. 483; C. M. L. 23. 18 Stats. at Large, p. 61; C. M. L. 23. $21 Stats. at Large, p. 61; C. M. L. 24. 4 McGinnis v. Egbert, 8 Colo. 41, 5 Pac. 652; Slavonian M. Co. v. Dacavich, 7 Saw. 217, 7 Fed. Rep. 331. 519 Stats. at Large, p. 52. 10 Sup. R. S., vol. ii, p. 65. 11 See, post, § 422. 1231 U. S. Stats., pp. 321, 329. 13 See, post, §§ 513, 515. 14 Stats. 1st Sess. 57th Cong., p. 691. Some of these acts have performed a temporary purpose; others, to some extent, form a part of the existing system, and, as such, will be again referred to in treating of the different subjects to which they relate. With reference to the Revised Statutes, approved June 22, 1874, it may be said that in the main they were a mere revision and consolidation of the general laws existing and in force on December 1, 1873. The existing system of mining law, with the exception of a few acts passed since December 1, 1873, is found codified or consolidated into the Revised Statutes. In treating of this system in the future we will simply refer to the sections of the Revised Statutes, unless the subject under discussion necessitates a reference to the original act. 76. Local rules and customs since the passage of the act.-Subject to the limitations enumerated in the act, the miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States or with the laws of the state or territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, and amount of work necessary to hold possession. While this privilege is thus granted, it is not universally exercised. Generally, in California the district organizations are things of the past; and we believe it is the case in other states and territories. The mining laws themselves are, under ordinary conditions, sufficient for all practical purposes. Yet we do encounter districts which still possess a potential existence. Therefore, local rules must be dealt with as a part of the existing system, though much limited in their scope. They have performed their part in the scheme of evolution, and have, for the most part, disappeared, to be replaced by higher forms of legislation. As to the state and territorial legislation, the tendency in later years has been in the direction of individual mining codes, more or less comprehensive. While the existing federal laws largely dispense with the necessity for local regulation and circumscribe the field within which states may legitimately act, yet we find individual codes in some instances re-enacting many of the provisions of the federal laws and supplementing them with numerous provisions, some of which are subject to the criticism of being in conflict with the paramount law. The force and effect of this class of legislation will receive due attention when the subjects to which they relate are under discussion. What is here said with reference to the tendency to abandon the system of local rules has its exception in the district of Alaska. That district has no legislature. This fact, taken with the unique manner of occurrence of some of the auriferous deposits there discovered, has resulted in the framing of local codes, which are in some instances quite elaborate. Some of the provisions are of doubtful value, and, as might be expected, some are repugnant to the federal laws. In another portion of this treatise we shall endeavor to point out the legitimate scope of such regulations and the limits within. which the miners are permitted by the congressional laws to legislate. & 77 Accession to the national domain during the fourth period. By treaty of cession entered into between the United States and the republic of Hawaii, adopted by joint resolution of congress July 7, 1898, all lands within the Hawaiian islands covered by the treaty which were the property of the republic, as distinguished from lands held in private ownership, passed to the United States, and became subject to the disposal |