geologists to give him the result of their operations and the character of the formation in which he is working, all of which would be necessary, if some of the contentions urged against the validity of locations should be by the courts sustained. A liberal spirit has been adopted generally in these decisions, sustaining good faith and honest effort to comply with the law, and an avoidance of technical defects to meritorious claims, while at the same time requiring a fair, honest, and substantial compliance with the terms upon which the general government extends its bounty to the prospector and locator." "1

In noticing the general attitude of the courts as above set forth, we must also bear in mind certain rules of statutory construction applicable to American mining law. They are stated by Mr. Lindley as follows: "(1) The mining laws are to be read in the light of matters of public history, relating to the mineral lands of the United States. (2) Where a statute operates as a grant of public property to an individual, or the relinquishment of a public interest, that construction should be adopted which will support the claim of the government, rather than that of the individual. (3) In the case of a doubtful or ambiguous law, the contemporaneous construction of those who have been called upon to carry it into effect is entitled to great respect, and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons. We might add a fourth rule, deducible from the foregoing and from the current of American authority and decisions of the land department, and that is that the word 'mineral,' as used in these various acts, should be understood in its widest signification.” "2

91 24 Am. Bar Ass'n Rep. (1901) pp. 349, 350. 921 Lindley on Mines (2d Ed.) § 96.

CHAPTER II.

THE MINING LAW STATUS OF THE STATES, TERRITORIES, AND POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES..

7. The Mining Law States and Territories.

8.

The Mineral Land History of the United States.

9. The Mining Law Status of the Several States and Territories.

THE MINING LAW STATES AND TERRITORIES.

7. American mining law applies to Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, the Philippine Islands, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. It applies also to certain land in Oklahoma.

Those parts of the public domain which the mining laws affect form but a comparatively small portion of the lands comprised within the United States and its territorial possessions, and to-day they consist of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, the Philippine Islands," South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Parts of Oklahoma are also subject to those laws.

THE MINERAL LAND HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

8. The land history of the United States reveals that parts of the United States have never been subject to the American mining law, because:

(a) The United States never owned any mineral land in the thirteen original states, nor in the states of Kentucky, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia, created out of them, nor in Texas.

1 Alaska mining is regulated under special acts. Act June 6, 1900, c. 786, 31 Stat. 321; Act June 6, 1900, c. 796, 31 Stat. 658 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1441); Act June 13, 1902, c. 1082, 32 Stat. 385; Act April 28, 1904, c. 1772, 33 Stat. 525 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 479); Act March 2, 1907, c. 2559, 34 Stat. 1243 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 476); Act May 28, 1908 (quoted in 37 Land Dec. Dep. Int. Adv. Sheets, 22). By Act May 17, 1884, c. 53, 23 Stat. 24, the mineral laws of the United States were extended to Alaska. Meydenbauer v. Stevens (D. C.) 78 Fed. 787; Revenue Min. Co. v. Balderston, 2 Alaska, 363.

2 A separate elaborate mining code has been provided for the Philippines. Act July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 697, amended by Act Feb. 6, 1905, c. 453, 33 Stat. 692. It has been supplemented by acts of the Philippine Commission. See Appendix.

(b) In the other states and territories, not subject to American mining law, either there were no mineral lands, or such lands were disposed of prior to the creation of American mining law, or under express statutory exception from that law.

The simplest way to explain why land in a given state or territory is or is not subject to the mining laws is to look at the history of that state or territory. Before taking up individual states and territories, however, a few preliminary words are needed about the general territorial acquisitions of the United States.

The Thirteen Original States.

The thirteen original states of the Union, namely, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia, so far as concerns the land within their present boundaries, were never affected by the mining or other land statutes of the United States; for no part of the land within such boundaries, other than sites for federal buildings, forts, etc., ever belonged to the United States. These thirteen original states embraced within their conceded boundaries lands which afterwards, with the consent of the interested states, were erected into separate states, and these latter states, namely, Kentucky, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia, like the parent states, were never subject to the United States mining laws. So, too, the District of Columbia has never been subject to the mining laws.

The thirteen original states also claimed during the Confederation large tracts of land to the west and north of their present boundaries, but during the Confederation and later they made various cessions of such lands to the United States. Taking these cessions in their natural order for our special purposes, rather than in their chronological order, we note first that South Carolina in 1787, North Carolina in 1790, and Georgia in 1798 and 1802, made cession of part of their lands to the United States, and these lands were organized into two territories, namely, the "Territory South of the Ohio," created in 1790, and the "Mississippi Territory," created in 1798. Out of these southern territories and part of Virginia were created the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. For physical reasons, and also because their lands were largely disposed of before the mining laws developed, none of these states have been appreciably affected by the mining laws. As we have just noted, Kentucky never was subject to those laws. Tennessee was formed out of territory ceded to the United States by North Carolina. "The entire area of Tennessee was public domain, but the United States gave the same to the state, after deducting the land necessary to fill the obligations in the

deed of cession of North Carolina." The mineral lands in Alabama and Mississippi were by the act of June 21, 1866, expressly excepted from the land laws applicable to those states. By the act of March 3, 1883, it was provided that all public lands in Alabama, "whether mineral or otherwise, shall be subject to disposal only as agricultural lands." Mississippi does not seem to have had or to have any federal mineral lands."

During the Confederation, New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut ceded to the United States the territory north of the Ohio river, east of the Mississippi, and west of Pennsylvania and New York, known as the "Northwest Territory," and governed under the Northwest Ordinance of June 13, 1787. Even the Western Reserve, the region within 125 miles of Pennsylvania retained by Connecticut, was, on May 30, 1800, ceded as to jurisdiction to the United States. This Northwest Territory, out of which were carved the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, was subject to the United States land laws, and the mineral lands therein, consisting of coal, iron, lead, and copper, were first leased and finally sold under special laws prior to the general mining legislation.". Michigan and Wisconsin were in 1873 expressly excepted from the operation of the mining laws.

& Donaldson, Public Domain, pp. 421-423.

414 Stat. 66, c. 127.

22 Stat. 487, c. 118 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1439).

See Statement of Unappropriated Public Lands of the United States, Issued by the Department of the Interior, General Land Office, on July 1, 1906. 7 See 1 Lindley on Mines (2d Ed.) §§ 32–35. "The general policy of the United States, as expressed in the statutes, executive acts, and proclamations prior to 1845, was to reserve the mineral lands from sale absolutely. These lands, so far as then known, consisted of lead, iron, copper, and zinc lands in that part of the United States territory which was then called the Northwest or Indian Territory, and comprised that portion of the country now embraced within the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota. This policy was trenched upon occasionally by acts authorizing the President of the United States to lease certain lead lands. This policy and these acts, as might naturally be expected, were provocative of mischief and endless disputes. It was impossible to collect the rents and royalties with certainty or regularity. Sales of mineral lands-that is to say, lead landswere finally authorized by statute; but this applied only to the lead lands of the upper Mississippi. At first only Missouri was included. By a later statute lead lands in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Arkansas were authorized to be sold for the space of six months. By a still later act the copper, lead, and other mineral leads of Michigan were authorized to be sold after an advertisement of six months. Later the lead land in the Chippewa district in Wisconsin was included." 1 Snyder on Mines, § 56.

Act Feb. 18, 1873, c. 159, 17 Stat. 465.

COST.MIN.L.-3

Subsequent Acquisitions.

The Louisiana purchase in 1803, the Florida purchase in 1819, the Texas annexation in 1845, the recognition of our claims to Oregon by Great Britain in 1846, the Mexican cession in 1846, and the Gadsden purchase in 1853, brought to the United States a vast extent of territory, nearly the whole of which, except that inclosed within the borders of the present state of Texas, was subject to the United States land laws. Of the states and territories which have resulted from these acquisitions, a number have not been subject to the United States mining laws, for one reason or another. Texas retained the title to its own lands, so never was subject to the United States mineral or other land laws. It has a mining law code of its own. Other states, because of lack of minerals within their borders or for other reasons, have been without the mining law jurisdiction.

The Alaska purchase in 1867, the Hawaiian annexation in 1898, the Spanish cession in 1899 of Porto Rico, of the Philippines, and of Guam, and the acquisition of part of the Samoan Islands by the treaty of December 2, 1899, ratified in 1900, added other territory. Alaska is mining law territory, and is governed by a special act approved June 6, 1900, and a supplementary act of June 13, 1902.10 The Philippines are also subject to an elaborate special mining act, of date July 1, 1902,11 amended February 6, 1905.12 Porto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands, and the Samoan Islands seem to have no mining law and to need none.

THE MINING LAW STATUS OF THE SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES.

9. Congress has provided specially for Alaska and the Philippines. The other mining law territories and states, with the exception of California, have adopted mining codes. A number of the states not subject to American mining law have legislation for the inspection and other police regulation of coal and other mines.

Now we are ready to take up the different states and territories alphabetically. In doing so we shall note briefly local, as well as national, legislation in mining. It should be pointed out at the start that

931 Stat. 321, c. 786.

10 32 Stat. 385, c. 1082. A special act about Alaskan coal lands, approved May 28, 1908, and land department rules thereunder, will be found in 37 Land Dec. Dep. Int. (Advance Sheets) 20-23. See, also, acts cited in note 1, supra. 11 32 Stat. 697, c. 1369.

12 33 Stat. 692, c. 453.