Mr. CARPENTER. A few of the hopeful ones. Mining conditions in Arizona, especially in southern Arizona, are in the worst condition that I have ever known them or ever head of their being.

Senator CAMERON. And that condition is brought about simply because under the present mining law and the rules of the department a man can not proceed with any assurance of getting a patent?

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, we would have to include in the reasons the low price of metal, which, of course, is not the fault of the department at all.

Senator CAMERON. I understand that; but then the rulings make it so uncertain.

Mr. CARPENTER. It makes it uncertain, indeed, with people who might invest in mining properties and take a chance on developing ore bodies, and who hold back on account of the uncertainties of their titles.

Senator CAMERON. Under the present rulings they almost compel you to prove that they have a paying mine before they will issue a patent?

Mr. CARPENTER. That is true--almost prove that you have a paying mine before you can get patent.

Senator CAMERON. Consequently it has deterred mining to such an extent that there are very few new mines being developed. Mr. CARPENTER. Very few new mines being developed.

Senator CAMERON. I fully understand the situation. I have had so much experience along this line and I have been ruled out in every direction that I can not only sympathize with you but I have experienced a financial loss.

Senator ASHURST. I have a real understanding of it.

Mr. CARPENTER. I think we have a couple of good friends at court. Now, we have studied carefully the results of leniency in granting patents to ground, and we can not see any detrimental results that would arise from any liberality in granting mining patents. For example, if a prospector locates a piece of ground, develops it to the extent of showing commercial ore, and does enough work to patent a dozen claims, and goes ahead and secures his patent, then if the result of future effort were to prove that the ore bodies were not of sufficient size or grade to be workable, he would be up against the proposition of paying taxes on that ground. As soon as he was satisfied that the land was worthless for mineral he would have the option of declining to pay the taxes and letting the land be sold for taxes. If it is not mineral land, then it would be put on the market, and if somebody wanted it for grazing or any other purpose they could buy it for a nominal figure.

Senator ČAMERON. If I may interrupt, isn't it a positive fact that there isn't a mining man to-day who would take up a mining claim under the present conditions unless he thoroughly believed that there was mineral of value there, which would justify any prudent man in developing that ground?

Mr. CARPENTER. You are certainly right.

Senator CAMERON. The day of wildcatting is gone by?

Mr. CARPENTER. The day of wildcatting has gone by.

Senator CAMERON. And the day of what we call the claim jumper has gone?

Mr. CARPENTER. The claim jumper has gone.

Senator CAMERON. It is down to an actual mining business? Mr. CARPENTER. It is down to an actual mining business. We nave in Tucson a number of mining men who are making honest, sincere efforts to develop and to bring into development mining properties. They took up those properties or purchased them from their locators because they had faith that they would develop into mines. They are willing to spend their money, and we believe that the mere fact that a man is willing to locate ground, expend the necessary money to the amount of the requirements for a patent, should entitle him to a patent without any argument on the part of the Government.

Senator CAMERON. From your experience as a mining engineer, do you know of any one section of this country, speaking of Arizona at the present time, where a mining man would go and take up a mining claim on what was either agricultural or grazing land?

Mr. CARPENTER. I don't know of it at all.

Senator CAMERON. So, consequently, under our present law we must change it to fit the condition; we must modify our present law to overcome the condition that now exists by reason of the rulings of the department?

Mr. CARPENTER. Yes. Now, so far as the Chamber of Mines is concerned, these three resolutions represent the unanimous desire of our body.

Senator CAMERON. I might state, Mr. Carpenter, that I will have a copy of the bill that I introduced at the last session of Congress, sent to you, and I will see that the record is not printed until we secure your comment on that bill. I wish you would try to get it to the committee before the 1st of July.

Mr. CARPENTER. Any time that you send the proposed bill we will call a special meeting of the chamber, and we will go over it in detail and study it.

Senator ASHURST. Send Senator Cameron, the chairman of the subcommittee, your comments in writing.

Senator CAMERON. We will also have the reporter give you as soon as he can the reference to the bill and the amendments suggested by the Bisbee Chamber of Mines, for your guidance.

Mr. CARPENTER. I would like to suggest that you call on a couple of mining men who are familiar with the situation and who can perhaps make some statements which will be enlightening.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is your criticism of the present mining policy directed mainly at the law or at the interpretation of the law by the Department of the Interior and the courts?

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, the law is absolutely inadequate. It does not cover the situations as they exist, and by following the exact letter of the law it would be impossible for many valuable mining properties to be made a legal location, and the criticism, if it could be called a criticism, would be with the legislative policy. If the law were adequate and direct and succinct to the point, the officials would have no difficulty in carrying out the law, but as it is now they simply have to make their own rules and regulations. I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me if you confine yourself right to the letter of the law about half of the patents that have been issued in the last 25 or 30 years have been illegal.

43213-25-PT 4 -12

Senator ASHURST. When the mining law of 1872 was passed, much in metallurgy, in minerals, and in chemistry now known was then unknown.

Mr. CARPENTER. Was unknown.

Senator ASHURST. And really in the mining laws we are going along with a stage coach.

Mr. CARPENTER. It presumes one type of deposit only, and since that time, ores have become valuable that were utterly worthless in 1872. In 1872, the Inspiration, Miami, Globe, the Sacramento Hill of Bisbee

Senator CAMERON. The New Cornelia.

Mr. CARPENTER. The New Cornelia, would have been utterly worthless.

Mr. BOWDEN. What recommendation would you make, in a general way, on a statute suitable to meet the conditions you speak of? Mr. CARPENTER. The recommendations are covered in the resolutions.

Mr. BOWDEN. Yes; but to elaborate on those.

Mr. CARPENTER. To elaborate on them, in locating a mining claim, there should be a valid location for a tabular deposit, for a vein, that would be located very much in the way that the present law is. It is a very satisfactory law and many of the old prospectors are very much in favor of that old law-object to any changes in it— and it is workable. In case that the deposit were of a vein type, for instance, a dissemination in an irregular-shaped body, if that is on surveyed ground, a legal subdivision should be put over that in any shape, say, in 10-acre blocks, a series of 10-acre blocks, that would cover that area. Then in that case, of course, the side lines would be vertical.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Carpenter, I think the bill that I referred to will cover that condition exactly.

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, that is good.

Senator ASHURST. In that case, then, where you are located by legal subdivisions, or 10-acre tracts, you would have no extralateral side line rights?

Mr. CARPENTER. No extralateral side line rights.

Senator ASHURST. In other words, your side lines there would be just the same as your end lines are on the lode now, is that right?

Mr. CARPENTER. That is right. We know that the apex law, that the attempts to apply the apex law to other types of deposit than the vein, has caused endless litigation and has cost millions and millions of dollars and every one has lost at it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any recommendations on the limit of the area that could be patented?

Mr. CARPENTER. Why, depending on the size of the deposit that is shown, and the geological conditions surrounding that deposit. For a single showing of ore in one shaft with drifts and cross-cuts, to show that that is commerical ore, I should say that for every claim that a man shows ore on-not for every claim-but when a man shows ore on one claim, he should be entitled to about two or three hundred acres of ground around it, say 10 or 12 other claims adjacent.

Senator CAMERON. That would depend a great deal on the geology of the country.

Mr. CARPENTER. From a geological standpoint, but I think from a single showing, a man ought to be entitled to two or three hundred acres of land, as long as he is willing to pay the price.

Senator CAMERON. He certainly isn't going to pay for something that he thinks is not worth it.

Mr. CARPENTER. He certainly isn't going to pay for more than he thinks he has a reasonable chance of opening up ore on, or has use for. You see, there comes a question of tailings disposal. We know that mining companies have been held up and forced to pay exorbitant prices for the use of a little surface ground there. Time after time that has happened.

Senator CAMERON. Land that wasn't valuable for any other purpose?

Mr. CARPENTER. That was absolutely worthless for any other

purpose.

Senator CAMERON. Thank you very much, Mr. Carpenter. State your name for the record, Mr. Stevens.

Mr. T. N. STEVENS (Tucson, Ariz.). My name is T. N. Stevens. Senator CAMERON. What is your occupation?

Mr. STEVENS. I am United States mineral surveyor, and civil engineer.

Senator CAMERON. How long have you lived in Arizona?
Mr. STEVENS. Ten years.

Senator CAMERON. You have had not only experience as a mining engineer for 10 years in Arizona but elsewhere in the United States? Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir; I got my experience in Colorado, and I was four years in New Mexico, engaged in this line of work, and in fact nearly all of the Western States.

In the past 10 years I have executed over one-tenth of all of the patent surveys issued in the State of Arizona. So you see I have had a little experience in that line.

Senator CAMERON. Will you give this committee the benefit of such information as you think we should have as to the present mining laws, and also tell us how you think they should be modified? You may just proceed in your own way.

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I have thought a good deal about that. Mr. Carpenter has gone over that pretty thoroughly. The main thing that strikes me is the ruling in the land office in regard to their regulations, the interpretation of the regulations.

Senator ASHURST. Possibly you prefer to be questioned, or would you rather go right ahead with your statement?

Senator CAMERON. I think possibly he can make a statement which will include the points he desires to bring before this committee.

Mr. STEVENS. Well, there are occasions where a man will make application for patent, and he has possibly just one or two showings on a group of 10 or 12 claims. He has his discovery holes, and sometimes in the rock there may be a little stain of copper, or there may be nothing at all. A few years ago it was the custom among the inspectors when a claim was examined for patent purposes, where they had a good showing on the ground, they would let the group go through. But I have noticed for the past 10 years that every year they are drawing the line a little tighter and a little tighter. It has got to a point now where they are almost limited to just actual mineral on the ground in commercial quantities. They will

go out and they will assay the ground, and if there is not enough ore in commercial quantities they maybe will cut out two or three claims in the interior of the group. I have known lots of cases where one claim will be cut right out of the center of the group and leave a little boundary around it, making it an irregular shape. Well, the ground is no good for anybody else then. They have just got to hold that by doing assessment work from year to year. It doesn't seem to help anybody out. I don't think it is the policy of the Government to have that ground that way. Not only that, but it brings on litigation with claim jumpers and the like.

Mr. BOWDEN. In other words, there has got to be an outcropping before you can really patent your location?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes; you have to have a valid discovery of mineral. You have got to have a showing of mineral on the ground on each claim.

Mr. BOWDEN. Irrespective of whether the mineral is down below or not?

Mr. STEVENS. That doesn't make any difference unless you uncover it. You have to show it up? I know cases here where the people have made application for mineral ground which everybody, even the inspectors or the experts of the Government, would not hesitate for a minue to say that it was mineral in character, and everybody believed that it was. Still they would contest this ground on the basis that they had no valid location. Well, then, this man would turn around and put a homestead on the same piece of ground. The Government would turn in then and contest his homestead because it was mineral in character.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any complaints to make on the actions of the department officials in classifying as agricultural lands which are valuable for mineral, if valuable for anything.

Mr. STEVENS. Well, the officials are merely carrying out the law that has been enacted by Congress. I don't think that they are trying to do anything to hurt the industry. It seems to me like it is just merely a fault in the mining law.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Stevens, before any land is patented, after the applicant makes his application for patent, there is a special agent, or a special mineral examiner sent out by the Government, to make an investigation?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes; he is the man that everything depends upon. Whatever his recommendations are will be carried out by the department.

Senator CAMERON. In your judgment, from many years' experience, do you find that these men are competent engineers to pass upon all questions of mining locations?

Mr. STEVENS. Well, from my experience with those who have been here, they seem to be pretty broad-minded fellows as a rule. But, at the same time, the decisions that they recommend do not seem to be in keeping with the recognized desires of the people. You know, in general, what they want.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, most of these recommendations or reports made by these special agents are adverse to the applicant for the mining location?

Mr. STEVENS. Absolutely.

Senator ASHURST. That is the point.