This heading is likely to suggest mining law and the vast literature devoted to it. Mining law has mainly to do with questions of the ownership and leasing of mineral deposits. In addition, there are laws relating to the extraction of mineral products, including those having to do with methods of mining and with safety and welfare measures. There are laws affecting the distribution of mineral products, such as those relating to tariffs, duties, international trade agreements, and many other matters. There are laws relating to underground water, to shore lines, and to various geologic engineering fields.
In the formulation of these laws, as well as in the litigation growing out of their infraction, basic geologic principles are involved; and thus it is that the geologist finds much practice in the application of his science to legal questions. It will be convenient to consider some of the laws relating to mineral resources under three headings: first, ownership and control; second, extraction; and third, distribution.
I
LAWS RELATING TO OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF MINERAL RESOURCES
Large use of mineral resources is of comparatively recent date. Some of the mineral industries are not more than a decade or two old and the greater number of them are scarcely a century old. In the United States the mineral industry dates mainly from the gold rush to California in 1849. The formulation of laws relating to the ownership of minerals has on the whole followed rather than preceded the development of the mineral industries; and hence mining laws relating to ownership are not of great age, although historical precedent may be traced far back.
On Alienated Lands
Where lands came into private ownership, or were "alienated" from the governments before the formulation of mining laws, varied procedures have been followed in different countries.
In England and the United States, under the old rÉgime in Russia, and to a slight extent in other parts of the world, mineral titles remain with the owner of the land and the government does not exercise the right of eminent domain. But even in England, where private property rights have been held peculiarly sacred, the discovery of oil during the later years of the war led to an attempt to expropriate the oil rights for the government. Because of the objection of landowners this attempt has not reached the statute books, but the movement is today an extremely live political question in England. A somewhat similar question is involved also in the movement to nationalize the coal resources of England, now being so vigorously urged by the labor party. In the United States, no serious attempt has yet been made to take over mineral resources from private ownership.
Other countries have gone farther in retroactive measures in regard to alienated lands. Under the leadership of France, most of the countries of western Europe have appropriated to their governments the undiscovered mineral resources on private ground, particularly those beneath the surface, except where previously they had been specifically conveyed to the private owners, or with the exception of certain designated areas and minerals which had been conveyed to private ownership prior to certain dates. Some minerals occurring at the surface, variously specified and defined in different countries, are allowed to remain with the private owners, although often subject to government regulation in regard to their development and use.
In varying degree this treatment of mineral resources on alienated lands is followed in the British colonial laws—in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada—and in the Latin-American laws. The laws are usually based on specified classifications of minerals. Those occurring at or near the surface, and called "quarries," "placer deposits," "non-mines," or "surface deposits," usually remain with the surface owners. Those beneath the surface, called "sub-surface deposits" or "mines," in general belong to the government. In some of the countries of South America the state exercises eminent domain even over the surface deposits; and in others even sub-surface minerals remain in private ownership, where specifically granted, or where the transfer of property took place prior to certain dates.
Where the government has acquired mineral ownership of lands previously alienated, the resources are open for development either by the owners of the surface or by others, on a rental, lease, specific tax, labor, or concession basis. The government holds the title, exacts tribute, and more or less directs and controls the operation. Exceptionally, as in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, and Newfoundland, the government grants patents, that is, it disposes of its rights to purchasers.
On the Public Domain
Where the development of mineral resources began before the lands had passed from governmental ownership, special mining laws were enacted. Looked at broadly, these laws may be regarded as based on two partly conflicting considerations.
(1) The assumption that mineral resources, which are wasting assets, accumulated through long geologic periods, are peculiarly public property,—not to be allowed to go into private ownership, but to be treated as a heritage for the people as a whole and to be transferred to posterity in the best possible condition. Some of the early minerals to be developed were used either for money or for war purposes, leading naturally to the acceptance of the idea that these belonged to the government or to the sovereign.
(2) The assumption that the discovery and development of mineral resources requires a free field for individual initiative, and that the fewest possible obstacles are to be put in the way of private ownership. Governments have not as a rule been greatly interested nor particularly successful in exploration. Therefore, in framing laws of ownership, concessions have been made to encourage private initiative in exploration and development. In the case of the United States this idea was coupled with the broad doctrine that the government held public lands only in the interest of the people, and that its people were entitled to secure these lands for private ownership with the least possible restriction.
A survey of the mining laws affecting the public domain or non-alienated lands of different parts of the world, as well as the history of changes in the mining laws, indicates a wide range of relative emphasis on these two underlying considerations. In the United States, at one extreme, the laws have been such as to give the maximum possible freedom to private initiative, and to allow easy acquirement of mineral resources from the government. At the other extreme, in South Africa, Australia, and South America, it is impossible for the individual to secure title in fee simple from the government; he must develop the mineral resources on what amounts to a lease or rental basis, the ownership remaining in the government.
The trend of events in mineral laws is toward the latter procedure. This is evidenced in the United States by the withdrawal of large areas of public lands from entry, and by the recent enactment substituting leasing privileges for specified minerals for the outright ownership which was allowed under the federal law before the lands were withdrawn from entry. The withdrawal of oil lands from public entry in other parts of the world is another illustration (see pp. 131-132).
Nationalization of Mineral Resources
Nationalization, as this term is popularly understood, means financial control and management of mineral resources by the government, either through actual ownership or through measures of public control designed to eliminate private interest from the active direction of the resources. In a broader sense, it may be used to include a considerable variety of restrictive and coercive measures adopted by the government in the proposed interests of public welfare,—as illustrated by the war-time measures instituted by the United States and other governments relating to the mining and distribution of coal, and to coal prices. In this broader sense various aspects of nationalization are indicated under other headings in this and other chapters.
It is clear that other countries of the world have gone farther in the direction of nationalization of mineral resources than the United States. The tendency was manifest before the war, and has been strongly emphasized during and since the war. In the United States, notwithstanding war-time measures, the subject has not yet come prominently forward, at least by name. On the other hand, there has been growing recognition of the dependence of public welfare on the proper handling of mineral resources—particularly of the energy resources, coal and oil,—as evidenced by a variety of proposals and measures under consideration in legislative and administrative branches of our national and state governments. Even taxation, both local and national, has in effect reached a stage where private interest has become considerably minimized by the increasing burdens laid on the industry by government requirements. The immediate purpose of taxation is to raise money for the needs of the government; but in the formulation of tax measures there is clearly to be discerned a growth of underlying sentiment that natural resources belong in some fashion to the public, and that private control is to be regarded not as a sacred property right but as a trust held on sufferance of the public.
In view of the obvious trend toward nationalization in other parts of the world and the significant tendencies in the United States, it seems likely that the subject of nationalization of mineral resources will come prominently to the front in this country in the comparatively near future. If so, it is time that students of mineral resources should recognize the comprehensiveness of this problem, and should attempt to develop basic principles to serve as a guide in the direction and formulation of the numerous and complex measures which are sure to be proposed. At present there is no government or technical organization related to the industry which is studying the problem in its broader aspects and is in a position to advise wisely with public officials interested in this problem.
It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the pro and con of an economic question of this magnitude. The writer would, however, record his belief, which is implied also in discussions in other chapters, that the discovery and intelligent management of mineral resources by their very nature and infinite variety require private initiative, and that the history of government efforts in this field in this and other countries does not promise that nationalization can supply sufficient advantages to counterbalance the loss of this element. With this view the problem of nationalization becomes one of determining what steps, if any, can be taken by a government to the advantage of public welfare, which will at the same time preserve and foster private initiative, exercised with the hope of reward, which seems alone to be capable of meeting the variable, elastic, and complex problems inherent in the development of a natural resource.
A first step toward a broad scientific attack on this problem would be the recognition of the fact that tariffs, taxes, conservation, international mineral questions, leasing laws, and various technical investigations of minerals are but parts of a great unit problem. With this recognition there should follow naturally an attempt to correlate and direct the many government agencies, legislative and administrative, now concerned with different aspects of the problem. Under present conditions, the various elements of the problem are considered by different groups of persons, without sufficient contacts or correlation to promise the development of a broad, underlying policy.
Effect of Ownership Laws on Exploration
The nature and the progress of exploration (and development) in different countries have been more or less related to the character of the mining laws.
Where the mineral resource has passed from government control into private ownership, exploration is a matter of commercial arrangement between the explorer and the owner. There is often some lag in exploration, especially where the lands are held in considerable blocks. The owner is often not inclined, or unable, to institute effective exploration himself; and even though he is willing to offer favorable exploration terms to others, the inducement is often less attractive than on government lands. For instance, it is stated that in England, due to the many requirements of law and custom, it takes on an average eight years, and in some cases even longer, to close a coal lease after the terms have been agreed upon. The slowness of exploration and development on the great land grants in the United States, and on the tracts of the large timber companies, also illustrates the retarding effect of private ownership. It is partly this situation that is making governments increasingly careful about parting with mineral ownership, and that is leading to the introduction of more or less coercive measures, either to regain control or to make it easier for the public to explore and develop minerals on privately owned lands. Under the great land grants to railroads in the United States it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure mineral patents from the government; and there has been litigation between government and grantees, as in the case of certain oil lands of the Southern Pacific Railway. The taxation in some states of mineral rights which have been reserved by large owners is indirectly resulting in appraisal of these rights by the owners and in efforts to utilize them. As long as mineral rights were not taxed independently of surface rights, they were often reserved in selling surface rights on the mere chance that mineral might be found in the future, and thereby general exploration and development were held back.
In the United States, minerals on the public domain have been open to exploration and acquirement with minimum restrictions, except for the considerable areas later withdrawn from entry. After long delay a part of these withdrawn lands are again open to private exploration, but not to fee ownership. Specified minerals—coal, oil, phosphates, and potash—may be explored for, and may be leased under certain restrictions as to amount and time of development. The effect of this act on exploration is yet to be proved; but since many of the lands have now been shown to be favorable for minerals which are in great demand, there is little doubt that exploration will be resumed on a large scale. On the whole, under the federal mining laws of the United States the individual prospector has maximum leeway,—and from the standpoint of development of resources this procedure probably has been justified.
In other countries where the mineral resources are owned by the government, there is in most cases considerable restriction, through licenses and other regulative measures, upon the activities of prospectors. This restriction, together with the fact that it is usually not possible to secure title to the land, but only to secure rights through rental or leasing, is to some extent a deterring influence on the penniless prospector. It does not follow that under these conditions exploration and development are absent. The charges imposed are light, and in the early stages require comparatively small contributions as evidence of good faith. It is to be remembered that exploration has become concentrated more and more into the hands of persons financially able to meet such conditions. Exploration is passing from the highly hazardous stage of individual effort into a systematic business with calculable returns.
Use of Geology in Relation To Ownership Laws
The contacts between geology and laws relating to mineral ownership are many and varied; a few illustrative examples are offered.
Many difficulties arise from the loose use of mineral names in these laws. The laws governing location of mineral deposits in Cuba are so framed that iron ores may be located and claimed from the government either as "iron ores" or as "bog ores and yellow ochers." Some of the important ores of eastern Cuba, now being extensively used in the United States, came into litigation because rival claimants had overlapping claims under the two classifications. The wording of the law is of course ambiguous, and suggests that geologists did not have a hand in its framing. To establish title to these claims it was necessary to show whether these ores had been rightfully located as iron ores, or whether they should have been located as bog ores and yellow ochers. This involved an analysis of the geological conditions, to show that the ores are the result of normal weathering and concentration in place of the underlying rocks—an origin common to many iron ore deposits,—and that they do not have the characteristic origin of bog ores. In short, the question was settled on the scientific principles of origin of ores and of metamorphic geology.
The efforts of our federal government to frame and apply mining laws to public lands have involved extensive geological and mining surveys by the United States Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines. The land classification work for this purpose by the Geological Survey has been of wide scope. The recently enacted leasing law, which opens up government lands for exploration of coal, oil, potash, and phosphate, requires carefully prepared geologic data for its proper administration.
State governments also have initiated surveys of an exploring nature for taxing and other public purposes (see pp. 306, 311).
In the United States there is a wide use of geologists as witnesses in litigation affecting "extralateral rights." The federal mining law gives the owner of the claim containing the "apex" or top of a mineral vein or lode the right to follow the vein down the dip, with certain limitations, even though this takes him on to adjacent properties under other ownership. Where two branches of a vein are followed down from separate claims, the owner of the oldest claim is entitled to the vein below the point of junction. The law was framed to validate a procedure more or less established by mining custom. It was obviously framed with a very simple and precise conception in mind—namely, a simple vein definitely and easily followed, without much interruption or contortion.
In nature, however, veins or lodes have a most astonishing variety of form and occurrence, making it difficult to frame a definition that is comprehensive and at the same time sufficiently precise for all cases. A commonly used definition of a vein or lode is a mineralized mass of rock which is followed for purposes of finding ore. The mineral matter may be continuous or discontinuous. There may be one definite wall, or two walls, or none at all. There may be associated gouges and altered or mineralized rock. The vein may consist of almost any combination of the elements of mineral matter, walls, gouges, and mineralized rock. Instead of being a simple tabular sheet, a vein may have almost any conceivable shape; it may consist of multiple strands of most complex relations; it may have branches and cross-over connections. It may be a more or less mineralized sedimentary formation with limits determined by original deposition. It is very often bent or folded, and even more often faulted; the faulting may be of great complexity, making it extremely difficult to follow the vein. The vein may be cut by other veins of different ages, which in places may be hard to distinguish one from another. Erosion working down on a complex vein displaced by faulting and folding may bring several parts of the same vein to the surface, developing what seem to be separate vein apices. Where there are many veins close together, it may be difficult to determine whether the entire mass should be considered a unit vein or lode (a "broad lode"), or whether each vein should be considered independently under the law.
The geologic aspects of these problems are obvious. There are few mining districts where the vein conditions are so simple that no geological problems are left to be solved with relation to extralateral rights. In the early stages of the mining, separate operations may be carried on for a considerable time in a district without mutual interference; but as mining is carried down the dip, what seemed to be separate veins may be found to be parts of the same vein or parts of a complex vein system, and separate mining organizations are thus brought into conflict. It then becomes necessary either to consolidate the ownerships or to go to the courts to see which claim has the extralateral rights. In either case, the geologist is called on to play a large part,—in the valuation of rights for the purpose of combination, or in litigation to settle apex rights. A geologic survey of the conditions is a prerequisite. In order to get the needed information for the courtroom, it may be necessary to go further, and to conduct extensive underground exploration under geologic direction. Some of the most intensive and complete geological surveys of mineral resources in existence have been done for litigation purposes. The study in these cases is not empirical, but goes into every conceivable scientific aspect of the situation which may throw any light on the underground conditions—the source of the ores, the nature and source of the solutions which deposited them, their paths of travel, the structural and metamorphic conditions, the mineralogical and chemical character of the ores and rocks, and even broader questions of geologic age. The many volumes of testimony which have accumulated during famous apex trials cover almost every phase of geology, and are important primary sources for the student of economic geology.
It is often argued that strictly scientific, impartial geologic work is impossible in connection with one of these trials, because the viewpoint is warped by the desire to win. The sharp contrast in the views of experts on the two sides is cited in evidence.
There is no denying the fact that the conditions of a trial tend toward a certain warp in scientific perspective. On the other hand, the very existence of competitive and opposing interests leads to the most intensive detailed study, and to complete disclosure of the facts. In most cases there are no substantial differences in the statements of scientific fact by reputable experts on the two sides, although there may be wide differences in the inferences drawn from these facts. The failure to note a fact, or any distortion or misstatement of a fact, is followed so quickly by correction or criticism from the other side, that the professional witness usually takes the utmost pains to make his statement of fact scientific and precise as far as his ability goes. Few scientific treatises in geology contain any more accurate accounts of mineral deposits than testimony in cases of this sort. If every student of geology, early in his career, could have a day on the witness stand on a geologic problem, under both direct and cross examination, he would learn once and for all the necessity for close and accurate thinking, the difference between a fact and an inference, and the difference between inductive study of facts and the subjective approach to a problem.
It is a common assumption that a witness called to testify on scientific matters is on a somewhat different basis from the eye-witness to an event or transaction. We are not sure that this assumption is justified. Seldom is it possible in mining operations to disclose the facts in three dimensions so completely that they may be empirically observed and platted by the layman. The grouping and presentation of the facts in adequate perspective require an analysis of the origin of the ores and rocks, the rock alterations, the structural systems, and other facts. No one ever saw the vein or lode in the process of formation. The true nature of the event and of its physical results must be inferred inductively from circumstantial evidence. If it be conceded that it is necessary and right to call an eye-witness to an event involved in litigation, it is equally necessary where there are no eye-witnesses to call the persons best qualified to interpret the circumstantial evidence.
It is to be remembered that apex cases are only one kind of a vast variety of cases affecting mineral resources. At one time or another, and in some connection or another, practically every geologist of considerable experience has found it necessary to testify on geologic matters in court. The wide interest attaching to certain spectacular apex cases has led in some quarters to hasty criticism of the participation of geologists therein, without apparent recognition of the fact that the criticism applies in principle to many other kinds of litigation and to practically all economic geologists. This criticism also fails to take cognizance of the fact that, for every case tried, there are many settled out of court through the advice and coÖperation of geologists. While there may be in the geologic profession, as in others, a very few men whose testimony can be bought outright, in general it must be assumed that geologists will appear on the witness stand only when, after careful examination, they are satisfied that there is a legitimate point of view to be presented.
Geologists and engineers understand more clearly than almost any other group the extent to which the complexities of nature vary from the conditions indicated in the simple wording of the law of extralateral rights. Almost to a man, they favor either modification or repeal of the law. On the other hand, the law has been in force since 1872, it has been repeatedly interpreted and confirmed by the courts, and a vast body of property rights has been established under it. Lawyers see great legal difficulties in the way of its repeal or serious modification. Mining men for the most part are not primarily interested one way or another, unless there is potential application of the extralateral-rights provision to their particular properties. Of those who are thus interested, some hope to gain and some fear they may lose in the application of the law. The general public naturally has little direct interest in the problem. There is thus no effective public sentiment favoring the repeal or modification of the law. It seems likely that for some time to come the law, in spite of its recognized defects, must be applied, and the best geological effort must be directed toward reaching interpretations which come most near to meeting its intent. To refuse to lend geologic science to the aid of justice because the law was improperly framed is hardly a defensible position. Presumably it will never be possible to frame laws with such full knowledge of nature's facts as to eliminate the necessity for scientific advice in their interpretation.
It has been suggested that the courts, and not the litigants, should employ the geologists. The practical objection to this proposition lies in the difficulty encountered by the judge in the proper selection of geologists. On the assumption that the judge would select only men in whom he had confidence, it is not likely that he would override their conclusions. The outcome of the case, therefore, would be largely predetermined at the moment the selection of experts was made. It is to be doubted whether courts can have the knowledge of the scientific field and of the requirements of the situation necessary to make the wisest selection of men to interpret the given condition. The competitive element would be eliminated. From a judicial standpoint, there seems to be an equally good chance of getting at the best interpretation of the facts by listening to presentations from different standpoints, with the accompanying interplay of criticism and questioning.
Another practical objection to appointment of experts by the court is the limitation of court costs, which would make it impossible to secure the highest grade men. So far as these men are public employees, such as members of the federal or state geological surveys, this might be arranged. For others, it might be suggested that they should be willing to sacrifice their energy and time in the interests of justice; but as long as human nature and conditions are what they are, it is perhaps futile to argue this question.
If it is right to apply science to practical affairs, in other words, if the profession of economic geology is a legitimate one, it seems inevitable that the application must be in some part directed by the geologist himself, in order to avoid mistakes and confusion. The contention that the scientist must isolate himself in a rarified atmosphere to avoid contamination from a non-scientific, commercial, or legal atmosphere, seems to the writer practically untenable, if we recognize any obligation on the part of science to the practical conduct of human affairs. The fact that the geologist in making these applications may occasionally find himself in a non-scientific atmosphere may be deplored from the standpoint of maximum creativeness in science, and from this standpoint there may be reason for limitation of time given to this kind of work,—but to stay out entirely on this ground is to deny his obligation to make his science helpful to his fellows. The problem cannot be solved by staying out. It calls rather for an especial effort on the part of the scientist to establish and maintain his standards of science and ethics in the applied fields. Some doubtless fail in this effort. Others are strengthened scientifically and ethically, and contribute important aid in raising general standards. The principle of non-participation in such activities for fear of lowering scientific standards may make the geologist's problem easier, but at the expense of non-fulfillment of duties. Such a course has for its logical consequence an abandonment of the application of his science to untrained men without the ethical anchorage of scientific achievement. In short, there may be legitimate criticism of individual geologists for their methods and ethics in the applied field, and this is desirable as an aid to maintaining and improving standards; but it is not a logical step from this to the conclusion that, to avoid unfortunate incidents, economic geologists must cloister themselves and thus deny the very implication of their title.
II
LAWS RELATING TO EXTRACTION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
Under this heading come a wide variety of laws and regulations,—national, state, and local,—affecting the manner in which mineral resources shall be mined or quarried. Such laws may specify the number of shafts or outlets, the use of safety and prevention devices, miners' compensation and insurance, and many other features. Most of these laws are framed for the purpose of conserving human life and energy, but they directly affect the mining or extraction of the mineral resources themselves. Geology plays but little part in relation to such laws.
Where the government retains ownership and leases or rents the resources, there are often provisions regarding the manner of mining and the quality and quantity of the material to be mined, in the interests of efficient operation and conservation. The geologist is often called into consultation both in framing and in dealing with the infraction of such provisions. It may be noted that the control thus exercised on the operator by government ownership is very much the same as that often exercised by the private fee owner. It is not unusual for fee owners of mineral rights to maintain a geological staff in order to follow intelligently underground developments, to see that the best methods of exploration and mining are followed, and that ores are either extracted or left in accordance with the best conservational practice.
III
LAWS RELATING TO DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
Under this heading come governmental regulations affecting directly or indirectly the transportation and the destination of mineral products. Transportation rates, tariffs, zoning, duties, and international trade agreements of all sorts have vital effects on distribution. In framing any of these measures for a mineral resource, it is desirable to know all about the character of the raw material, its physical occurrence and distribution, and the possibilities for future development. In adjusting the scientific naming and classification of mineral materials with the crude names and classifications used commercially—as in tariffs, in import and export laws, in reports of revenue collectors, in railway and ship rates, etc.—the geologic information is likewise necessary.
Heretofore, the formulation of measures concerning mineral distribution has often not been done on a scientific and impartial basis; but in recent years geologists have been called on more frequently for aid and advice, as a means of checking or verifying the special pleadings of the different industries. The rude disturbance of trade routes during the war brought home the necessity of basing control of distribution of mineral products on fundamental facts of geology and geography; thus it was that geologists had a considerable voice in the vast number of special measures taken for war purposes by such organizations as the Shipping Board, the War Trade Board, the War Industries Board, and other public organizations. The same was true in relation to the mineral resource questions at the Peace Conference. In the reconstructive measures of the future, a still larger use of scientific considerations may be looked for. Further suggestions as to the relation of geology to laws affecting distribution appear in the chapter on International Aspects (Chapter XVIII).
IV
OTHER RELATIONS OF GEOLOGY TO LAW
It is often assumed that the economic geologist is exclusively interested in mineral resources. However, there are varied applications of geology outside of the mineral resource field,—to many kinds of engineering and construction operations, to soils, to water resources, and to transportation,—any of which may develop legal problems requiring geologic service. A few illustrative cases follow.
The classification of mineral materials in contracts presents many difficulties. A contract for a railway cut, for a canal, or for any other kind of excavation may specify different prices for removing different mineral materials. Too often these are stated in extremely crude and arbitrary terms, such as rock, hard rock, hardpan, earth, dirt, etc., without regard to the actual variety of materials to be dealt with. When, therefore, in the case of the Chicago drainage canal, the contractor encountered a soft shale and claimed compensation for rock excavation, geologists played a considerable part in the extensive litigation that followed in the attempt to define the facts of nature in terms of a contract which did not recognize them. In a railway cut through glacial drift or till, a contractor came suddenly upon a mass of till which had been so thoroughly cemented in place as to have all the resistance of rock. Litigation was then necessary to decide whether this should be classified as dirt or rock.
Rock and dirt slides of all kinds, met with in open-pit mining, canals, and other excavations, present engineering problems with a geologic basis. The kinds of rocks, their strength, porosity, and moisture content, the effects of weathering, and the structural conditions must be determined in order to ascertain the cause of the slides, and are features which figure largely in litigation arising from troubles of this sort.
Both federal and state laws give the right to lateral and vertical support. When, therefore, adjacent or underlying excavations cause earth movements in a neighbor's property, litigation is likely to ensue and the geologist is likely to be called in. The long-wall method of coal mining, extensively practiced in certain parts of the United States, is slowly withdrawing support from the ground overlying the coal seams, resulting in damages to surface structures and in some cases to overlying mineral deposits. Extensive litigation has been the result, and the future seems to promise more of it. In certain metal-mining camps, where considerable amounts of materials have been mined to great depths, caves and cracking in the surface are reaching over unexpectedly wide areas, again threatening litigation.
The laws relating to the use of surface and underground waters touch the geologic conditions in many ways. The permanent lowering or raising of a water level through mining or damming may require a careful geological analysis of the underground conditions affecting the movements of ground-water. The use of streams for placer mining, as in California, has resulted in formulation of laws and in extensive litigation, again requiring analysis of geologic conditions.
In fact geologists, perhaps more than any other group, have come to realize how many and how varied are the ways in which people get into conflict in using the earth on which they live.
