I am indeed grateful for this opportunity to be heard before this distinguished committee. Certainly it is further confirmation that big National Government still has time and interest in the rank-and-file citizen.

This report is written from questions arising from a hearing of John Hand v. BLM; the latter alleging that two claims were invalid owing to insufficient mineral showing. This case is referred to by docket No. 046789–В and took place on July 17, 1964, at the courthouse in Dillon, Mont.

As stated above, I am coowner in a family-operated mine which has operated continuously since 1942 and has produced some 50,000 tons of ore having a value of about $3 million. The mine is located some 12 miles west of Dillon in southwestern Montana.

We are a small business which employs between 4 and 10 men, in addition to the services of myself and my father.

Naturally we have no staff as large companies do, and attempt to attend to all the details ourselves. So that when it comes to hearings such as this BLM hearing in July of last year, we feel ourselves torn between mandatory attention to business on one hand and self-preservation on the other. The fact is, we find it increasingly difficult to keep pace with the changing Government regulations. As is indicated by the accompanying claim map, the property is comprised of a group of patented claims and two unpatented claims. We consider the group the smallest economic unit for any present-day mining operation. Starting from an operation on two patented claims, we have worked hard to attain the group size necessary. Naturally we will fight hard to protect even the unpatented claims from BLM or others.

We cannot concede that the claims fall under the jurisdiction of Public Law 167 since they were located well before 1955. They were taken up under the mining laws of 1872 in our understanding. As of this time we are not seeking patent but only a citizen's right to hold legitimate mining claims under this set of older laws.

We and the mining industry as a whole endorsed the enactment of Public Law 167 with the express intention of terminating the abuses for which mining claims were being used. We still stand behind this idea of the act; the idea for which Congress must have strived. It was not, we are sure, Congress intent to harass a legitimate mine operator to satisfy a departmental regulation.

The Bureau of Land Management had contended that the location was invalid due to insufficient mineral showing. We contended and still contend that indeed the iron gosson and structures present are sufficient to move a prudent man to work the ground with a reasonable expectation of developing a valuable mine. Far lesser showings than these are pursued underground at this mine with success. Even BLM conceded that the land was mineral in character and this is true for they must be looked upon as an integral part of a presently producing mine. These showings merely confirm extensions of veins already worked successfully to the south. Then, too, ore has been mined adjacent to the sidelines of these claims as the claim map shows.

I attach for your information exhibit A, written by a very competent and able man for this hearing. Dr. Walker is a graduate mining engineer from Queens College in Toronto with a Ph. D. from UCLA. He is experienced in geological work in Canada and the United States.

We are at a loss to understand why BLM found it necessary and vital to manage the surface resources. as they contended, when access in the form of right-ofway for trails and roads are not denied and never have been and the remaining surface resources are limited to poor grazing which is not and never has been denied on the patented claims, as well as the unattended claims. The privileges of a mining claim have not been abused; nor has the surface been unduly marred by extensive dozer cuts because thoughtful and considerate development must take the form of underground work. In addition, we have only two claims and these are not full sized. We have not attempted to locate and hold the entire public domain. We are interested in only what we need and have use for.

Owing to the advanced stage of mineral exploration in this country, I deem it extremely tragic that the marketability concept of requiring commercial oreshowing is even considered to justify a valid location. Future discoveries will undoubtedly come from "hidden outcrops."

Since mineral examiners are at liberty to rule on the validity of a claim, we suggest that their qualification be based on experience of at least 10 years in the actual practice of exploration, development, and mining.

I sincerely submit for your consideration an excerpt from another report of Dr. Walker's and I quote: "The Hand mine lies in a regional belt of tertiary

folding, thrust faulting, intrusion, and mineralization which trends N. 20 E. for at least 80 miles through southwestern Montana from the Bannack gold district near the Idaho State line through the southern part of the Boulder Batholith to Butte and beyond toward the Helena mining district."

This belt, along with a somewhat greater east-west belt, probably holds many of the future producing mines yet to be found. I appeal to the efforts of you gentlemen of the U.S. Senate to preserve these areas for mining.

EXHIBIT A

TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF JOHN HAND WITH RESPECT TO THE UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS: THE HAND AND THE RED CAP NEAR ARGENTA, MONT.

To Whom It May Concern:

Having examined the Hand mine property during the period March 1 to April 7, 1963, I am of the opinion that the unpatented mining claims, the Hand and the Red Cap, held by John Hand of Argenta, Mont., in sections 19, 20, 29, and 30 of T.6S., R.10W., Beaverhead County, Mont., should remain as mining lands for the following reasons:

(1) The Hand and the Red Cap claims form integral parts within the group of several patented mining claims which presently comprise the Hand mine property. In particular, the aforementioned two unpatented claims form logical adjuncts to the Brownell lode and the Anaconda lode patented claims.

(2) The Hand and the Red Cap claims have favorable mining exploration possibilities as deduced from at least three known geological features:

(a) North striking vein structures exposed in the present workings of the Hand mine should reasonably be expected to continue to the north under the Hand and Red Cap claims;

(b) Several additional northwest striking, northeast dipping vein structures known within the mine area should also have deeper extensions beneath the Hand and Red Cap claims;

(c) The Madison limestone and a north dipping, mineralized quartz monzonite and limestone contact zone which underlie the present workings of the Hand mine are both possible loci for other vein structures at depth beneath all claims of the Hand mine property. This would include the Hand and Red Cap claims.

(3) Mining and surface rights to the Hand and Red Cap claims should be retained by John Hand so that any future exploration work, viz, geophysical or geochemical surveys or a drilling program can be conducted freely from the surface of the claims.

Senator GRUENING. The next witness is Mr. E. B. Connors, manager of exploration and development, Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., Helena, Mont. Mr. Connors.

STATEMENT OF E. B. CONNORS, MANAGER, EXPLORATION AND

DEVELOPMENT, KAISER CEMENT & GYPSUM CORP.

Mr. CONNORS. Senators Gruening and Metcalf, and ladies and gentlemen, my name is Edward Connors. I am manager of exploration and development for Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp.

Our company holds no unpatented mining claims in the State of Montana, so perhaps it would appear that at this meeting we have nothing to complain of nor offer to this group. The reason behind the fact that we are not trying to develop further raw material sources and resources in Montana may be enlightening and helpful to this assembly, at least it will explain our interest in this meeting.

As you may know, the Kaiser companies, to a large degree, are in basic industries producing useful materials from mineral resources. The companies are: Kaiser Steel, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical, Kaiser Sand & Gravel, Kaiser Cement & Gypsum, and one or two others.

Of these aforementioned companies, we represent only Kaiser Cement & Gypsum. Each of these companies could present tales of frustration in obtaining patents to mineral claims from the Federal Government similar to those I will outline here, which have befell Kaiser Cement & Gypsum.

Frustrating experiences in the past and continuing in other States at the present time have discouraged our management from exploration and development of mineral resources on the public domain. We are in need of further mineral resources in Montana. There are areas where the exploration for these needed mineral resources would prove fruitful, but frustrations experienced in other States have caused us to look primarily to resources already patented by others.

I would like to outline for you two such costly and fruitless ventures: The first: In 1956 we obtained an option on a tract of privately owned land in Socorro County, N. Mex., on which there was a known deposit of limestone. The mineral resources on this land resided with the Federal Government. We then placed mining claims on this limestone and proceeded diligently to explore and test this deposit. The limestone proved excellently qualified for the manufacture of portland cement. We then purchased the surface rights of this property and proceeded to complete the statutory requirements for patent. May 1959 we made application for patents for this group of claims. Application was filed with the Bureau of Land Management at Santa Fe, N. Mex., Patent Application No. NM-063649.

In

Following patent application there was a long period of waiting, punctuated by much correspondence and telephone conversation with the Bureau of Land Management. Finally we were notified that our patent was to be denied. We asked for a hearing to explore the reasons for such denial.

This hearing, in the form of a precomplaint meeting was finally held on March 16, 1961, nearly 2 years after the date of application for patent. I have copies of the minutes of that meeting with me. Should they be desired, I can have them reproduced. I might add that the minutes of that meeting probably would be of much interest to you Senators.

The essence of the complaint as of that time, are covered by the following four points:

1. No discovery could be claimed when it has not been proven that mining and processing of the material would be economically feasible.

2. The limestone was not locatable, as it was not a valuable mineral, as defined under the multiple-use act of 1955.

3. That the north half of claim No. 73 was nonmineral in character, and

4. That insufficient improvement had been accomplished. Following this meeting was another long period of waiting, and during this time we corrected to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Land Management on several of these points, and in these points that we did make corrections on, they were points of minor importance.