Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, I desire to remark upon the character of this bill that it is an entire divestment of the U.S. of 2 things, which I think the U.S. should always retain within its control: one is the fee of the mining property; the other is the right to regulate the production of gold, in order that no private interests, no local rules or regulations may interfere with the proper and legitimate supply of the mineral which furnishes our measure of value in the U.S. As the Constitution gives us the right to exercise this control we should, in my opinion, never part with it. With these views, deliberately and long entertained, I have made inquiry to ascertain whether this bill as it comes from the Senate could be intelligently amended so as to secure those 2 results, and at the same time attain the great object which the gentlemen from the mining districts have in view an object equally legitimate and equally deserving the attention of the House which is thatsecurity shall be given to the possessory titles and the interests alread' vested, under no authority from the U.S., but simply through the enter prise and irrepressible zeal which characterize the American people. How shall we accomplish these 2 purposes the reservation of this supreme right of the U.S and the security of those who are willing to invest their property and even expose their lives in the production of this very valuable mineral? In order to answer that question, I propose to amend in the 14th ine of the 2nd section by changing the phrase “granting such mine" so as to road, “granting the use of such mine, ” also, by striking out in the 16th and 17th lines all afterthe word “adjoining." This, Mr. Speaker, is for the purpose of providing that the parties who now have possession of a mine shall have a patent granting to them the use of a mine, which, when the title is ascertained, is to be exclusive of all others making claim thereto hereafter, and will secure the investments already made by citizens of the U.S. The Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. JULIAN] has suggested that We shall violate a great principle of the common law if we allow these mine rs to enter the adjoining lands. I wish to say, sir, that I differ with him; and with the adoption of my amendment his objection will fall to the ground. Gentlemen who have not visited the mining districts may not, perhaps, be aware that the different veins and lodes are not perpendicular, but descend frequently at an angle, the angle beiu sometimes even 45 degrees;vand time go down 100s of feet into the earth. They have been known to run a short distance very nearly horizontally, and then to descend at an angle. The lode must be followed wherever it leads. I recollect 2 mines in Colorado of very great value indeed, where 2 lodes cross each other some 300 feet below the surface of the earth, and each man must follow his own lode, and where it crosses he must go on the other side, on the other land, and vice versa, the other claimant must go on otherland. This bill is intended to provide that each may use his own lode and nobody else, though in cscending the earth he may strike another; that each must follow his own lode, wherever that may lead. That I regard as indispensable. In the 3rd section, page 8, line 15, where it provides that upon the payment to the proper o cer of 5 do lars peracre, together with the cost of such survey, plat, and notice, and giving satisfactory evidence that said dia gram and notice have been posted on the claim during said period of 90 days, the register of the land office shall transmit to the GLO said plat, survey, and description &c., I propose to strike out “per acre” and insert “for each 100 lineal feet along the vein or lode." It is simply to make it follow the grant of the use oft e mine, and that takes with it so much of the adjoining land as is necessary for the development of the mine. That is also indis sable. I then insert “ or the use thereof” and “a claim on;” so it will read: I And a patent for the usethereofshall issuefor the some thereupon. But said plut. survey, or description shall in nocasecovcrluoro than one veine rlodc, and no patent shallissuofora claim on more than one vein or lode, which shall beexpressedin the patent issued. 1.also in the 4th section propose, in the adjustment of the survey, that it shall be made under regulations to be provided by the commissioner of the Public Lands. In the 8th and 9th lines of the 4th section I strike out “ localrules, laws, and cus toms of miners” and insert “ rights hereby conferred." That also accomplishes the purposes of the gentlemen from the mining districts. At the end of the 4th section is a proviso that no person may make more than one location on the same lode, and not more than 3,000 feet shall be taken in anyone claim by any association of persons. It is previously irovided that the discoverer may make two. fhat is right, and Ipro use to insert “other than the discoverer.’ I}: will then read: And provided further, That no person other than the discoverermay make morothan onolocation on thu snme lode and not more than 2000 lines l fcet shall betaken in anyoneclaim by any association of persons. In the 5th section, where it is “ provided that as a further condition of sale, in the absence of necessary legislation by Congress, the local Legislature of any State or Territory may provide rules for working mines involving ease ments, drainage, and other necessary means to their complete development, and those conditions shall be fully expressed in the patent ” I would add “until otherwise ordered by on gress." That gives them temporary regulation until we find it necessary to exercise the reserved supreme right of the U.S. There are some other verbal correctionsin the next and following sections. In the 9th section, instead of saying we protect the owners of reserved rights, I say so far as the rights of the U.S. are concerned as against any legal claims they may have the right of way as granted and limite by a right of way across and through the public lands of the U.S. In the 10th section, where agricultural lands are granted, I say it shall be done without prejudice to the right of the U.S. to deal with them as mineral lands in case of discovery of such mineral therein. Then I add an additional section, as follows: SEC.12.And heitfurther mooted, That Congress rservosthe right of forfeitureand of rodisposttion of all claims patentedunder the provisionsof this act. which shall not.bein good faith developed, used, and workedwithin 3 years from the date of such pat ent, and with reasonablecontinuity thereafter: and to provide all rules. regulations and conditions for ascertainingthe same and relating thereto: and if any such claim shall beabandoned, thesameshall be thereby forfeited, and maybe again patentedto any other claimapton the same termsas efore, thofacts to be ascertained by tho liko proceedings as provided in the 2nd and 3rd sectionsof this act; and the proper regulations for carrying this not into effect she] be provided by the Commissioner of Public Lands. approved by the SecyInterior; and Congress further reservesthe right to adjust, by generallaw. in any mining district anydiscrepancies. irregularities, or uncertainties touching the character and management of mining claims. This concludes my ownviews as to the necessity of a reservation of the rights of the U.S. Mr. Speaker, the great object of the Government should he to develop the mineral resources of that art of the country; and in doing that it can est be accomplished by providing that they shall not absorb these lodes and veins and hold them, as they do the public lands of the U.S., for purposes of speculation, but they shall go on and continue in good faith to develop them. If they do that, then the title will be ranted; if they do not, the title reverts to the U.S. Unless this be done, I see no safety in passing this bill as it comes from the Senate.