ABSTRACT
It should be clear by now that serious problems in the adminis tration o f the Mining Law began to emerge soon after enactment, and have multiplied since. In response, there have been a multitude o f calls for its reform and modification. Numerous commissions, committees, and other august bodies have been constituted over the past century or more to report on various aspects o f public land management and, more specifically, on federal minerals, materials, and resource policy. Almost without exception, those examining the Mining Law have recommended that it be modified substantially or simply done away with. The administrative agencies and courts that have had to deal continually with the inadequacies o f the Law have often made the same plea. For example, a court in 1884, shrinking from what it called the “herculean task” o f making sense o f the Mining Law, warned that “the sooner amendments are m ade. . . the better it will be for the mining industry.” Ninety-two years later another court repeated the refrain: “Modern mining practice seems to require amendment o f the act o f 1872.” 1
Given this consistent pattern, it may seem remarkable that few of these recommendations have been translated into law; instead, most have been ignored. When the Congress has managed to stir itself to act, its action has been more in response to immediately felt exigen cies than to any need for a well-considered evaluation o f the federal mineral policy. That much should be obvious from the result we see today-an unwieldy, patchwork structure that may delight some lawyers and other technicians who have to deal with it, but does not, in the main, serve the national interest.
