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