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,