LETTER TO THE EDITOR — Legal chicanery threatens U.S. mining

The Northern Miner’s support of a strong and viable U.S. mining industry is very much appreciated. Recent editorials on Summitville, Bruce Babbitt, and zinc and the EPA have been right on point. Your support of the Crown Jewel project is also appreciated.

Unfortunately, the Department of Interior has waged a very effective campaign of misinformation about the requirements of the 1872 Mining Law — a campaign that the media have failed to question. One such misconception, which your editorial “Congress saves Crown Jewel” (T.N.M., May 31-June 6/99) assumes is true, is that the 1872 Mining Law imposes a limitation on the number of mill sites one may locate, and refers to this as a “technicality.” It is important that you and your readers understand that the Mining Law does not limit the number of mill sites; nor does it provide a ratio between mill site claims and lode or placer claims. A reading of the 1872 Mining Law confirms this. Virtually every respected U.S. mining lawyer agrees. It is phantom language invented by the real “phantom menace,” Department of Interior Solicitor John Leshy. Thus, there is no clause to “strictly interpret” and no “technicality” for Babbitt and Leshy to hang their anti-mining hats on.

Second, much more was at stake than the Crown Jewel project and the role of mining in the American economy. The real underlying issue was the separation of powers guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (i.e. that Congress, not unelected bureaucrats in the Executive branch, legislates).

In this case, Solicitor Leshy attempted administratively to amend an Act of Congress — the Mining Law of 1872 — and change 125 years of interpretation when he issued his infamous mill site opinion in November 1997.

Leshy’s mill site opinion is just one lawyer’s opinion, nothing more and nothing less. It is not entitled to any more weight than any other lawyer’s opinion. It certainly does not reflect the rule of law or the intent of Congress. When unelected bureaucrats attempt to amend an Act of Congress by executive fiat in a manner as outrageous and unethical as that employed by Secretary Babbitt and Solicitor Leshy, Congress is justified — in fact, required — to use the most expedient means available to right the wrong.

The actions of Babbitt and company were an affront to Congress and the Constitution. In the United States, there is a right way and a wrong way to effect political change. The Mining Law was an Act of Congress. It should be amended by an Act of Congress, not by legal opinions and instruction memoranda of unelected bureaucrats. Thank God Senator Gorton and the Congress had the courage to stand up to these rogues.

Laura Skaer

Executive Director

Northwest Mining Association