New York Paper - End-Lines and Side-Lines in the U. S. Mining Law

There is apparently no end to the doubts, inconsistencies and absurdities in which the courts of our mining States and Territories are involved in their attempts to apply to conditions of ever-increasing complexity the provisions of our anomalous mining law. In previous papers, I have called this statute " the law of the apex," because it based upon that vague, novel and mysterious condition the most important grant of title. But the apex is scarcely a more essential feature than the end-lines and the side-lines; for the rights which it may confer may be limited in various ways by these; so that we have, in many a case, the most ridiculous result that the United States, in return for the money of a citizen, conveys to him with much solemnity, under its broad seal, nobody knows what, bounded nobody can tell how. A decision recently made at Butte by Judge De Wolfe, of the United States District Court of Montana, in the case of King et al. vs. The Amy and Silversmith Mining Company, furnishes a fresh illustration of this criticism. The diagram on the following page, constructed without precise regard to courses and distances, simply to assist in the statement of the essential features of the case, will, 1 hope, make clear the principles . involved : The plaintiff occupies a location (the Nonconsolidated) adjoining on the north the defendant's location, a b c d (the Amy), and the disputed mining-ground lies, let us say, in depth under the point W, that is, on the dip of the vein, VD, but not under the surfacelocation, a b c d. The defendant has the prior title, and claims this ground under its extra-lateral right. It is admitted that the apex does not cross the end-line, a d, and does cross the side-line, a b. Whether it crosses, at the other end of the location, the end-line, b c