capital. In fact the industry in that country has been mainly responsible for the gain of 71% over the average output of the entire region, though the growth of tin mining in Bolivia has been notable, as well as of copper mining in Chile and Peru. The gain in gold is largely due to Mexico, where a production of $29,196,026 was attained in 1911, and by this time would have exceeded that of all the rest of Latin America but for the unsettled political conditions that have prevailed there since 1911. In fact, ever since about 1888, the metallic output of that country has continuously been greater than that of all the rest of Latin America combined. In 1910 the figures were, for Mexico, $93,942,382, and for the balance of the members of the group $62,219,214. From this interesting showing it would seem to be a safe conclusion that the Latin American system of mining law produces its best results so far as the matter of output is concerned— when pushed to its extreme in principal, as is the case in Mexico where there are absolutely no restrictions to the amount of ground that may be acquired and held, so long as the very moderate annual taxes thereon are paid, while in addition no discovery is required. On the other hand the extreme poverty of the masses in that country in the face of the great production of new and permanent wealth, coupled with the concentration of mining territory in the hands of a comparatively few, much of which is idle, and the complete absence of small holdings, reveal the unfortunate effects of a law which does not specifically and definitely encourage and foster surface exploration and individual enterprise. Considering the group as a whole, substantial progress has taken place in Mexico, Chile, Bolivia and Peru. In the Central American states, and in Columbia and Venezuela there has been little growth in the industry for the last twenty-five years. In Ecuador, Brazil and Argentina mining is actually declining. In Paraguay and Uruguay the production of metals is unimportant. In the countries of the first group the mining laws are the most up-to-date of their class, and very favorable to the investor. The instability of political conditions in the second sufficiently explains the stagnant condition of the industry among them. These countries produce little but gold, the most of which is recovered by natives operating in a small way on river bars, and using only the most primitive applicances. In Ecuador and Brazil the mining laws have never been modernized, and are in very bad shape. In Argentina the latest revision and codification is far too elaborate, and in a number of matters is seriously restrictive, showing a movement away from the simple principles of Spanish mining law. From Mexico since 1889 has come, as shown, more than half of the metallic output of Latin America. All of the zinc, practically all of the lead, 37% of the copper, 39% of the gold and 68% of the silver. Its law, from the point of view of the investor, is by far the most simple and liberal of its class, and has served to attract enormous amounts of American capital to the development of its mines and the establishment of its metallurgical industry. On account of the great number of well-known but yet idle mining properties throughout the whole of Latin America, many of which are known to have been highly productive in the past and are by no means exhausted, it will be many years before the admitted lack of prospectors in the field will be left. The doctrines upon which those of its mining laws that have been modernized rests answer all needs of the working populations in their present state of semi-servitude. Nor are they breeding conditions that will require revolutions to correct them when the time comes in which the pioneer mineral explorer will be needed to lead the way to the discovery of new fields. In the foregoing resume the statistics of British, Dutch and French Guiana have been omitted, because, as will be seen by an examination of their mining laws as given elsewhere, such mining as is in progress is being conducted under quite different systems. In all three, though favored with abundant mineral resources, the industry is in a depressed condition. CHAPTER VII THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF MINING LAW. DIGEST OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. STATISTICS OF THE PRODUCTION OF PRECIOUS AND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM The American system of mining law is based upon the theory that the unappropriated public domain of the United States belongs to the people of the nation individually, together with all mineral deposits existing thereon, and that any native-born citizen, or an alien who has formally (under the naturalization laws) declared his intention of becoming one, may freely at any time, and to an unlimited extent, search for and appropriate any deposit that he may be the first to discover, by following the procedures prescribed by laws made by themselves. As to those existing upon land already appropriated, the necessary corollary is that they belong to the recorded owners thereof, and may not be taken away except for public use under the operation of the doctrine of eminent domain. The system in its details has two eminently distinctive features. The first of these is that the steps prescribed for the initiation and maintenance of mining titles are not mandatory so far as the government is concerned. All may be omitted or neglected by the prospector and miner, even to the matter of recording his discovery, and yet, so long as the tract appropriated remains in his physical possession, he may extract ore therefrom and convert the same into money free of all obligations to the authorities. But, on the other hand, failure to perform any one of the acts prescribed in the law gives to any fellow citizen who desires to possess his ground the right and opportunity to attack his title and assert a legal claim for the possession of any part or the whole of it. In the case of a contest of this kind the attitude of the government is simply that of a preserver of the peace until the courts, before whom both contestants must appear and give evidence, have rendered a decision upon the facts presented. The second feature is the nature of the extralateral right of pursuit conferred upon the lode claim. Differing from the theory of the old Spanish laws and some of the modern Latin-American ones, it gives this right not only to the vein first discovered and to its complete extent in depth, but also to all others whose apexes can be shown to lie within the boundaries of the claim, either at its surface or vertically below any part of it. Again, differing from the theory of the old German law, this right of pursuit is confined strictly to the ore-bearing channel or channels that may exist, and does not include any portion of the country rock enclosing them. To understand properly the American system and gauge its comparative worth, it is necessary to know its history. From the time when mining first began in the western United States (1849) until 1865, a period of nearly 16 years, titles to mineral property were initiated and maintained under laws made by the miners themselves. The industry began in California and spread north, south, and east from there, and the district laws framed by the pioneers of that State were reproduced in very nearly identical tenor so far as fundamentals were concerned in all other parts of the newly opened region. These laws were based upon the physical conditions encountered by the miner in California and recognized two classes of claims called respectively placer claims and lode claims. Priority of discovery and of staking determined the matter of ownership in both cases. The matter of size varied broadly in accordance with varied local conditions. Claims of both kinds could be recorded and possession was maintained by work. It was quickly realized that the placer claim was a temporary holding to be abandoned as soon as worked out or exhausted to such a degree as to be no longer interesting. The lode claim, however, was another and quite different affair, and the discoverer was deemed to have acquired the right to pursue his ore body downward as long as he cared to do so, regardless of where it led him. Thus, independently of the principles that had governed in other mining regions in the past, the doctrine became firmly held as properly applying to all kinds of mineral deposits other than alluvials. It was not until 1865 that Congress passed any legislation affecting mining titles, and then the only action taken was to announce the principle that in the matter of disputes between claimants to the same piece of land, while the source of title must be recognized as reposing in the Federal government, the latter merely acted in the capacity of Trustee for the people, had no inherent rights of its own in mineral land, refused to assert any as between contesting claimants to any tract, but would pass title to that contestant who in the courts established his superior rights. The language of the Act was as follows: Section 910 of the Revised Statutes. "No possessory action between persons, in any court of the United States, for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land in which such mines lie is in the United States; but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.” In the following year this theory was again stated in slightly different form, as follows: Sec. 1 A. C. July 26th, 1866. "The mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intentions to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and subject also to the local customs and rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States." |