=1–26= Update: In order that mineral surveyors may keep abreast of new laws it is desirable that the Office of Chief, Division of Cadastral Survey, Washington, D.C. keep the mineral surveyors advised, furnishing copies of the Acts and pertinent regulations, so far as it is practicable to do so. Mineral surveyors may also keep abreast of new legislation through the local offices of the BLM, their congressmen and by becoming members of local mining associations and attending their meetings. State Mining Laws =1–27= Both the Acts of 1866 and 1872 provided for recognition of “_local customs or rules of miners_ in the several mining districts so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.” (R.S. 2319, 30 U.S.C. 22). C.F.R. 3831.1 states in part “(c) _complying with_ the _State Laws_, regarding the recording of the location in the county recorder’s office, discovery work, etc. As supplemental to the United States mining laws there are _State statutes_ relative to location, manner of recording of mining claims, etc., in the State, which should also be observed in the location of mining claims.” 43 C.F.R. 3841.4–2 states in part: “... 600 feet in width, but whether surface ground of that width can be taken depends upon the local regulations of _State or Territorial laws_ in force ....” and 43 C.F.R. 3841.4–6 “the location notice must be filed for record in all respects as required by the _State or Territorial laws_, and local rules and regulations if there be any.” Requirements of State law as to mining locations must be complied with if they are not repugnant to the United States mining laws. South Dakota v. Madill, 53 I.D. 195 (1930). It is very clear that State laws must be complied with and some states go so far as to state that if the essentials of discovery and location are not complied with, the claim shall be null and void. Also, location certificates that do not contain the information set forth in the law, including an adequate description, shall be void. The mineral surveyors cannot ignore state law, yet there are areas where they should not force the claimant to comply, such as failure to do the necessary discovery work as long as a discovery point has been designated. In such cases the claimant should be advised of the apparent discrepancy. At his insistence, the survey should be executed and processed to show the facts and conditions as they exist, leaving the matter to adjudication during patent proceedings. On the other hand, an inadequate description in the location certificate is justification for requiring an amended certificate.