Mr. STEVENS. In fact, in nearly every case it is that way. Senator CAMERON. For instance, I knew where there was an application for patent for 23 claims over in what we call the Gleason district, in Cochise County, and a special representative of the Government was sent out from Santa Fe, and this man had applied for 23 claims, and had been shipping ore out of one or two of them for a number of years to the smelter at El Paso. When the report went in by the special agent of the Government, he recommended that all but 5 of the 23 claims be rejected. From my knowledge of mining, from such little experience as I have had along those lines, I find that if there is any way on earth that one of these special agents can report adversely to the applicant he is going to do so.

Mr. STEVENS. That is true.

Senator CAMERON. I will help you out that much.

Senator ASHURST. I want to elaborate on the chairman's contribution, because my experience within the past 20 years is that when a prospector attempted to patent a mining claim he was treated as an object of suspicion. Instead of the Government pinning upon him a badge of honor for trying to contribute to the general welfare he is spied upon. He is sometimes treated as if he were an object of contempt.

Mr. STEVENS. That is absolutely right. They make a man prove that he is trying to be square in the matter before they will issue a patent.

Senator ASHURST. Well, as to the proof. Under the laws of any one of our 48 States we will suppose that a man worth $10,000,000 should die and his will were contested. The proofs that would be sufficient to establish the validity of a will bequeathing $10,000,000 in any State in this Union would be rejected by these Government agents. Proofs that would be ample to prove any contested fact in any court these special agents reject and say it is not sufficient. In other words, they lay upon the miner and the prospector a greater burden than is laid upon the alleged heirs of one who left an estate of $10,000,000.

Mr. STEVENS. I find in my experience that in nearly every claim that goes to patent there are some of the claims that are rejected on some line like a nonshowing of mineral on them, and it seems to me like after a man has spent a great deal of money in doing the development work-$500 worth of work-to have sufficient for patent purposes, and then paying for the survey of the ground and his fees in the surveyor general's office and gone along that far he should have some leniency shown him in the amount of ground. I don't know of a single instance where a man is trying to grab the ground just to own a lot of ground. They all believe that the land is valuable for mineral, and a claim or two is not sufficient for mining operations. There is nobody nowadays that tries to develop a mine with just one or two claims. They have got to have a group.

Senator CAMERON. On top of that the applicant is paying the Government the highest price that is paid for any public domain, $5 per acre.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir. In fact, when they come to pay for all the fees and the survey and the expenses in connection with it it runs a great deal higher than that.

Senator ASHURST. How high will it run?

Mr. STEVENS. Well, it will average close to $300 a claim. Senator CAMERON. That is for 20 acres. That is the lode claim? Mr. STEVENS. That is a low price on it, too. Sometimes it runs as high as $100 to $150 more.

Senator CAMERON. The survey of a claim-of course, it is located according to its location. Sometimes it is located in a very rough country.

Mr. STEVENS. Now, in the Indian reservations they have regulations whereby they take up this ground in groups, and they don't pay any attention to the lode lines, and it seems like while I wouldn't recommend that this ground be surveyed in groups like that I believe a man ought to be able to take up the claims one at a time. I think he should be able to take just the number of claims that he likes. I think that law as to the number of claims is a good law; it is fair, and I think it is all right. The only thing wrong with it is the interpretation of it. I think in years gone by they used to patent the claims under the same law and overlook these little technicalities which to-day are brought to the front, so that a man just simply can't do much with that.

Senator CAMERON. Is it not a fact, Mr. Stevens, if the strict letter of the law as construed by the department to-day had been in force in the past, we would not to-day have Bisbee developed, Miami developed, Jerome developed

Mr. STEVENS. You would not have any mining.

Senator CAMERON. New Cornelia developed, or even the great Magma mine that is coming in now.

Mr. STEVENS. All these mines were started by just one showing of mineral, and then they have had to

Senator CAMERON. Develop them years afterwards.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any comment to make upon the conditions existing relative to prospecting in the forests?

Mr. STEVENS. No; I don't know of any particular cases where there is great hardship worked upon the prospector in the forest, outside of just conditions that are not very hard upon the prospector.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do the forest officers encourage exploration in the forest?

Mr. STEVENS. I don't know that they do. I wouldn't want to say. Mr. BOWDEN. You would not desire to comment on that matter? Mr. STEVENS. No.

Mr. BOWDEN. How large an area do you recommend for patent in one claim?

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I think that depends upon the conditions locally. If the geological conditions were such that it was reasonable to suppose that a man had a large disseminated body of ore there, then he ought to be able to take up as many claims as he felt able to keep up. I think along about 10 or 12 claims are usually taken up for mining purposes, from 1 to 10 or 12. Sometimes people will hold 50 or 100 more claims, but it seems to me like 10 or 12 claims is a pretty good group of ground for a little mine to operate on. I think that the number of acres should be determined more by the conditions locally, the geological conditions, more than anything else.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then you would leave it to the department to determine the size of the claim in any particular instance?

Mr. STEVENS. No; I don't think that they would, that they are in a position to do that at all.

Mr. BOWDEN. You see, what I am getting at is: Should Congress in enacting a law set an amount, a number of acres, or what?

Mr. STEVENS. I don't think that they should do that. I think that the present law, letting a man take all the claims that he felt able to carry, is the best and fairest all the way round, because no one is going to hold 100 mining claims. Even though they don't do, maybe, $100 worth of work on each claim, they do spend a lot of money in digging holes around and making some sort of showing for their own protection, to keep the other fellows from jumping it, and it seems to me like the old mining law is pretty fair, with the exception of the technicalities that have been construed by the depart

ment.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, the regulations that have been made by the department?

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Stevens, isn't it a fact that if a man went out and located, say, one or two claims, and most prospectors, as we know; have very little money, and he wanted to interest capital in his mining venture, in those two or three claims, unless it could be proven that they were very rich to start with, so that there would be a prospect of developing a big mine, it would be very difficult to interets capital in a small amount of land like that.

Mr. STEVENS. Capital generally looks at the size of the ground, rather than the richness of it. There are thousands of little mines around over the country, patented mining claims here and there, and the owners of them are not able to do anything with those claims, while if they had a group of claims developed they could get capital interested in them, whereas they won't look at a single claim. Senator ASHURST. Thank you.

Senator CAMERON. Is Mr. Harshberger present? Now, Mr. Harshberger, will you go ahead and give us the benefit of your information as to the mining industry?

A. J. HARSHBERGER (Tucson, Ariz.). I have had considerable experience for a young man only 66 years old. I have been actively engaged in mining for the last 30 years. I have been in Pima County, Ariz., for the last 6 years, operating as a mining engineer. There are a great many things that have been said here that I should like to comment upon, but I would prefer that you ask me questions pertaining thereto, so that I will have an opportunity to give you my views on the subject.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Bowden will question you.

Mr. HARSHBERGER. Especially in regard to the present laws of patenting claims. That, in my opinion, is where most of the trouble lies in Arizona. It is just as Mr. Carpenter told you. The present mining laws, made in 1872, were applicable to the mining business at that time, but, as you gentlemen know, the mining business has progressed the same as any other business, while the laws have not kept pace with the advancement of the mining industry and the condition of affairs as they exist to-day. When those laws were passed

we didn't know what tungsten was; we did not know what molybdenum or vanadium were; but they are minerals that have been discovered and put to a beneficial use since that time. Now, as to formations: The present mining law states that you shall have mineral in place before you can receive a patent to a mining claim. Now, mineral in place in mining parlance means a lode, ledge, or both, or a vein. The largest mining property that we have in Pima County is the New Cornelia. I venture to say they could not patent their property to-day under that law and do it legally. They have a mountain of ore down there. Is it in place? No; it is not. It is a conglomerate. They are taking it out with steam shovels, etc. The law should be so worded that a man having a valuable deposit of mineral, even though not in place, could, by complying with the law, spending the amount of money that is necessary to obtain a patent, get a deed to that property.

Again, you are locating a mining claim fifteen hundred feet long, with a well-defined outcropping of mineral. You will go along down another fifteen hundred feet it has no outcrop. Fifteen hundred feet farther you will find another outcrop of mineral. Well, you can patent this claim and you can patent that one, but the one between you can't. Why? Your ledge runs through there, but on account of erosion, the sinking of that vein, it will cause him to lose that claim which he is entitled to, to get the extension of his vein. He should have his title there the same as the others, but nature is peculiar. She has eroded and covered that all up. I have known cases where you could go 300 feet before you strike it, and then you find the ore. Now, can the poor prospector do that? He would have to spend probably five to ten thousand dollars to locate his mineral on that center claim in place in order to get title to it, when he is entitled to it, when he can show, in my opinion, evidence of mineral on the ground.

I have heard some discussion here about the amount of claims a man should hold. I have 47 claims and a fraction, almost a thousand acres of land. I venture to assert that if I should undertake to have my friend, Brother Stevens, survey that for patent, that there would be at least 10 of those 47 claims upon which I would not have what the law calls "mineral in place." Furthermore, I will say that there isn't a claim located there but what mineral deposits are there in sufficient quantities so that it should be patented ground. That is where I claim our law is faulty.

It is good as far as it goes, but we have advanced in the mining business, and the law has not kept pace with us. I contend that we should amend that law so that it will be applicable to the mining conditions of the present day.

Mr. BOWDEN. Ór supplement that law by another law pertaining to minerals that are not in place.

Mr. HARSHBERGER. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. That law is suitable to minerals in vein?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. You have no criticism of that at all?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. No criticism; it could not be better.

Mr. BOWDEN. It simply does not provide for other deposits? Mr. HARSHBERGER. It does not meet the present conditions of the mining business. It does not assure the owner that he can get title

when he is entitled to it. I venture the assertion that there is onehalf of the mineral claims that are patented in the United States to-day that have been patented illegally, and I base that on my past experience.

Senator CAMERON. But if they had not been patented we would not have any mines?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. We would not have any mines; that is the idea.

Senator CAMERON. What we want to do, what we are holding these hearings for, is to see if we can not get information upon which we may intelligently act in passing a new law, or modifying the old one, so that we can proceed with the development of this country from a mining standpoint.

Mr. HARSHBERGER. That is what we need.

Senator CAMERON. From your viewpoint, how many claims is it necessary to have in order to interest capital? For instance, you can not interest capital any more in one or two or three or four claims, can you?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. No, sir.

Senator CAMERON. It can not be done?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. No, sir.

Senator CAMERON. From you experience, would you say, under the conditions as they now exist, it would have been possible to develop these disseminated ore bodies, from a financial standpoint, unless the owners had been able to secure a large acreage of land around the location?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. Senator, it takes a large acreage to make volume enough of the ore that is there, in order to interest capital to invest money in it. There have been thirteen millions of dollars spent down here at Ajo by the New Cornelia for equipment and plant. The company would not have been justified in putting that much money in there unless there was sufficient acreage to support that investment of capital, to take that ore out of the ground and to get a return. If I understand, you want to get my opinion of the limitation of location. Locations, in my opinion, should not be limited until the entire ore body is taken out, grouped, for if there is enough, after it is all taken up, for several companies to get in and get a part of it, well and good. It is there to be divided up, after it is located and taken up. But it takes a large body of lowgrade ore, which is our paying ore, in order to interest capital, in order to get capital to go in and develop the property. They couldn't do it; they couldn't make this expenditure on a half a dozen, or even a dozen claims. They would want all the ore it was possible to obtain in order to meet the cost of production.

Senator CAMERON. You mean by that lode claims?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. I mean by that blanket formations. Lode claims are different.

Senator CAMERON. Under our law we have no provisions for locations of other than lode claims?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. No; but they are made.

Senator CAMERON. I know, but I say, under our law, that is the only method of locating?

Mr. HARSHBERGER. That is true, and that is why I am complaining. As the Senator has stated, I think there should be additional