Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
Collection: Directories and Documents > Pamphlets
Mining Engineering and Mining Law by James D Hague (PH 2-14) (1904) (11 pages)
Go to the Archive Home
Go to Thumbnail View of this Item
Go to Single Page View of this Item
Download the Page Image
Copy the Page Text to the Clipboard
Don't highlight the search terms on the Image
Show the Page Image
Show the Image Page Text
Reset View and Center Image
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Rotate Left
Rotate Right
Toggle Full Page View
Flip Image Horizontally
More Information About this Image
Get a Citation for Page or Image - Copy to the Clipboard
Go to the Previous Page (or Left Arrow key)
Go to the Next Page (or Right Arrow key)
Page: of 11
neighbor be maintained as lawful, practically
destroying the title to the vein or lode, which
was originally granted—and really intended
to be granted—by the United States to the
original patentee.
This disastrous condition may also arise
from. merely accidental or technical defects,
which may be found, or made to appear, in the
patented title, resulting from alleged non-compliance of existing conditions with prescribed
terms of the law, involving the questionable
character and the true place of the vein or
lode, or of its “top or apex,” its physical structure, the “downward course,” and the precise
relations of the lode to the surface boundaries
of the patented claim, the parallelism or other
geometrical relations of end-lines and sidelines of the survey, and the legal conditions
and complications resulting therefrom.
These conditions, moreover, are so complicated by the many uncertainties and ambiguities
of the language of the statute and terms of the
patent, the widely differing and conflicting
views and opinions of the experts, and the judicial rulings of the courts in construing the
Acts of 1866 and 1872, that the law of 1872—
which was enacted to simplify, establish and
confirm a clear and unassailable title—sometimes wholly defeats its own good purpose, destroys the title which it was intended to create
and maintain, and brings forth nothing but
confusion and contention, with everlasting and
costly litigation.
It is, therefore, easy to understand how it
comes to pass that many of the most eminent
American mining engineers of our time find
the most important part of their professional
business in rendering service as learned interpreters of the law and expert advocates in
mining litigations. I remember to have heard,
long ago, a reported dialogue between the late
Mr. Justice Field, of the United States Supreme Court, and a certain highly distinguished
member of the United States Senate, long and
widely known as owner and operator of important gold and silver mines. The senator
was, at the moment, engaged in conversation
with Justice Field, and had related to him some
interesting details of his mining operations in
Mexico.
“T don’t see why you need to go to Mexico
for mines,” said Mr. Justice Field; “haven’t
we enough good mines in our own country?
Why do you go to Mexico?”
“We go there,” replied the Senator, “because in Mexico there is no United States
Supreme Court.”
This is not the place, subject to the necessarily brief limitation of time, to attempt any
adequate discussion of the merits or defects of
the present law. The design of the extralateral right was praiseworthy in its purpose to
protect the prospector and miner in the full
possession of the vein or lode which he had
discovered and developed, even though, in its
downward course, it passed beyond the vertical
boundary of his narrow surface-claim and entered into the land adjoining. As this adjoining land was presumably the public domain,
the Government, as its sole owner, could doubtless dispose as it pleased of its own property,
in thus granting such mining rights beneath its
surface, without contravention of common law.
But, however meritorious may have been the
purpose to protect the discoverer, by statute, in
the possession and full enjoyment of all his
rights and privileges, the good intention of
the act has, unfortunately, only paved the way
to perdition for the title, not to the extralateral right or ground alone, but to the vein
or lode contained within the original grant,
which is, or may be, liable to practical forfeiture for non-compliance with essential terms
of the law, which are made to depend upon
indefinable conditions, indefinite limitations and
indeterminate problems.
What is the vein or lode? What and where
is its “top or apex”? What is its “downward