feld or Streichendesfeld, because the claims were measured along the strike of the vein by long measure or Längenmasz, was the class of mining claim which exercised the extralateral right. The Geviertefeld or Seifenfeld or Quadratmasz, was a squared claim which was bounded by vertical planes passed through its exterior surface lines. The latter class of claims was employed to cover placer deposits and mineral deposits of great width with no regular strike or dip and also flat or bedded veins called Flötze which dipped at an angle of 20° or less, measured from the horizontal.

The measuring or squaring (Vierung) of the Längenfeld and of its extralateral right was an involved process. There was first a temporary or superficial measurement to fix approximately the boundaries so that other prospectors might know what ground was free to locate. When demand was made by a claimant or his adjoining owners, and the mine workings sufficiently extended to enable the measurements to be made, the formal squaring took place which established the boundaries definitely and finally. The surveyor first determined the main strike of the vein and marked. this line out on the surface. The discovery shaft was the customary starting point and an attempt made to average the natural changes of the strike of the vein, usually resulting in an assumed middle line from which the lateral measurements of the surface boundaries were made. 10 An equal distance was thus measured each way along the top or apex of the vein from the discovery point and the two terminal or end points of the length taken on the vein marked. These Längenfelder varied in length in different mining districts. As a rule the Fundgrube or discoverer's claim was 42 Lachters in length and adjoining claims or Maszen 28 Lachters.. The total legal width of the claim on the surface was

(1839). These are the recognized authorities on the German extralateral right. Other authorities too numerous to mention were also consulted. There has been very little material descriptive of the Germanic extralateral right published in English. Raymond in his excellent review of the mining laws of the world appearing in Mineral Resources, 1869, Part II, "Relations of Government to Mining," pp. 173-250 memtions it briefly, p. 195.

8 In some districts the angle was 12° and in others 15°.

The measuring of the claim was called the "Vierung" or squaring of the claim because the unit of measurement was usually a "Lehen", an ancient measure which was a square measuring 7 "Lachters" each

way.

10 This is somewhat analagous to the "lode line" of American mining locations.

usually 7 Lachters," which was divided either equally on each side of the vein, or the entire width could be taken on one side in special districts. The measurements were usually made from the walls of the vein, leaving the vein free in the middle, though in earlier times they were made from the middle of the vein. This was called the squaring of the claim and must not be confused with the squaring of the vein itself which was a distinct measurement. The squaring of the claim resulted in a definition of the surface area which the claimant was entitled to control.12

After a squaring of the claim on the surface had taken place it was necessary to determine what was the measure of the right to mine on the vein extralaterally. The longitudinal limits of this extralateral right were variously determined. There seems to have been a lack of explicit legal regulation of the manner in which this should be done and few data are found in the literature on this subject so that in practice much doubt and many conflicting views arose as to which legal principles should apply.13 The procedure of measurement varied with the conception of the principle adopted in each case. The measurement most commonly employed was to pass a vertical plane through each marked end point of the vein at the linear extremities of the claim and at right angles to the general line of strike or average course of the vein, and extended into depth. These parallel planes constituted the longitudinal boundaries or end line planes of the Längenfeld, between which the vein could be worked extralaterally and to infinite depth.1

11 A "Lachter" is 67.5 inches. Hoover's Agricola, note p. 78. 12 Those who are familiar with the early mining history in the Western states of the United States will appreciate that this fundamental idea, so prominent in the measuring of the claim in Germany, of having the right to a certain length of vein which should control the laying out of the surface boundaries was quite widely accepted as being in force here. (Lindley on Mines, §§ 59, 573). Later the courts held that the actual position of the vein did not control the boundaries and the locator was only entitled to whatever length of vein he included within his surface lines. (Flagstaff Min. Co. v. Tarbet (1878), 98 U. S. 463, 25 L. Ed. 253). In Germany the vein remained the controlling element until a formal squaring of the claim had taken place which might not be for several years. In the United States the surface boundaries became the prime factor and the acquisition of the vein was subordinated to those boundaries.

13 It is interesting to note that also in England the mining laws of Derbyshire and in the United States the mining Act of 1866 both failed to prescribe any rule for establishing the longitudinal or end boundaries of the extralateral segment of vein that attached to a mining claim.

14 It is a striking coincidence that under the Act of 1866 where no specific provision was made for measuring the extralateral right the

Another measurement employed in some instances was called the Ball or Waterdrop method. This limitation was ascertained by passing vertical planes through the lines which would be established if we imagine the path of a ball or drop of water running down the plane of the inclined vein from each of the end points of the claim. If the strike of the vein changed materially in depth this would naturally produce curved or bent bounding planes. Another method consisted in ascertaining the end points of the lode at the surface by measuring out the length of the claim in both directions from the discovery point, following the lode in all its windings and variations, for this purpose, and then projecting these end points downward from level to level using the true dip of the vein to determine the projection. By connecting this series of projected end points the longitudinal boundary of the extralateral right was ascertained. There were still other methods used for determining the end boundaries but in modern times the measuring of these at right angles to the main or average line of strike became the general rule.15

The squaring of the vein or lode itself added to these complications. This squaring was considered much more important and was given preference over the squaring of the claim, for the latter had more to do with fixing surface boundaries. The square of the vein or deposit accompanied the lode in depth in all its variations and directions and at an equal distance therefrom. If we imagine two planes, one on each side of the vein and equidistant from it and following it in all its undulations and turnings in both strike and dip into unlimited depth we have the artificial limits within which the miner could mine and follow his main vein and if his claim was the senior in time he was entitled to any other veins or portions of veins which happened to exist between these artificial

American courts arrived independently at the same general result. Mr. Justice Field in Eureka, etc. Co. v. Richmond, etc., Co. (1877), 4 Sawyer 302, Fed. Cas. No. 4548, said: "Lines drawn vertically down through the ledge or lode, at right angles with a line representing this general course (of the vein) at the ends of the claimant's line of location, will carve out, so to speak, a section of the ledge or lode, within which he is permitted to work, and out of which he cannot pass." And Mr. Justice Temple in Argonaut Min. Co. v. Kennedy Min., etc., Co. (1900), 131 Cal. 15, 28, 63 Pac. 148, 82 Am. St. Rep. 317, used the following language: "Planes through the lode at the end lines of the location at right angles to the general course would impose the required limitation upon the rights of the locator along the lode."

15 Zeitschrift für Bergrecht, Vol. 40 (1899), pp. 430-431.

bounding planes. If at any particular place in the main vein it became necessary to ascertain where these imaginary boundaries would fall, a point was taken on the wall of the vein and a straight line passed through it conforming to the general dip of the wall of the vein at that place and there was also passed through the same point and at right angles to the dip line a straight line conforming to the general strike of the vein at that place. At the point of intersection of these dip and strike lines a third line perpendicular to both the others was erected and extended out into the country rock away from the wall of the vein for the lawful distance and the extremity of this line would give the position of one of the imaginary bounding planes of the Längenfeld at that particular point. In other words the width of the territory within which the miner was permitted to work in his extralateral mining was measured from each wall of the vein out into the country rock and at right angles to the wall. This distance was commonly 31⁄2 "Lachter" in the hanging and the same distance in the foot, i. e., on each side of the vein. In some districts the entire width could be taken on one side of the vein. The total width varied from 7 even up to 500 "Lachter" in some cases. Usually where the width was great it was measured from the vein on a horizontal plane instead of perpendicularly from the walls of the vein. The intersection, branching, faulting, pinching out of lodes within these imaginary planes and the consequent conflicts which arose between junior and senior extralateral claimants gave rise to the innumerable law suits and vexations litigation which finally resulted in the abolition of this class of claims.

In the case of the Geviertefelder or squared claims with vertical boundaries, mining was sometimes confined within these vertical limits to a particular vein or bedded deposit with the right to mine a specified distance into the hanging and foot walls and the right to mine on underlying or overlying veins granted to other claimants. Complications naturally arose in such cases when the identity of the particular deposit was doubtful or destroyed, etc., and claimants of other deposits contested the right to continue mining.

There is a general impression that the extralateral right is a thing of the past in Germany. It is true that in many of the mining districts the extralateral right was abolished commencing in the early part of the nineteenth century and that the general mining law of June 24, 1865, operated to abolish it completely, but

existing vested rights were recognized. Owners of these Längenfelder carrying extralateral rights were given the privilege of changing to Geviertefelder or claims with vertical boundaries. In spite of the fact that the procedure for making the change was simple, many Längenfelder claimants either did not desire to make the change or were unable to do so because their claims were so situated with reference to one another that it was impossible to readjust them. As a consequence, there are still in existence in Germany today thousands of claims possessing extralateral rights and complicated cases involving the exercise of these rights are of not infrequent occurrence, As one of the writers on this subject states, "This is the inevitable result of the characteristic legal nature of the Längenfeld and its dependence on the changes of the deposit." It is his opinion that while these claims may have had some usefulness under simple mining conditions, the incalculable changes in strike and dip of the mineral deposits gave rise to an excessive number of controversies and finally brought about the abolition of the law granting these rights so far as concerned initiating new rights.

This action of the Germanic States in abolishing the extralateral form of claim after it had been in operation for over six centuries is cited as one of the strongest arguments in favor of similar action being taken by the United States. While there are the same general underlying reasons here for such a change, anyone familiar with the German form of extralateral right with its much greater complexities and its earlier indefiniteness with regard to its longitudinal measurement in depth will appreciate that there was far greater justification for such action in Germany. The American extralateral law with all its complexities is comparatively simple. Here we have surface claims the boundaries of which are defined and which only depend in a minor degree upon. the position of the mineral deposit. Subsequent development showing that the claim does not conform to the position of the vein will not necessitate readjustment of boundaries." Under the Germanic law, the surface boundaries of the claim were usually

16 Zeitschrift für Bergrecht (1899), p. 419. The measuring of Längenfelder, by von Hatzfeld, Mining Surveyor General in Bonn. There are ten mining districts in this jurisdiction where there are extensive mining operations being carried on in these Längenfelder there being over 3000 in the jurisdiction of this Surveyor General alone.

17 Harper v. Hill (1911), 159 Cal. 250, 113 Pac. 162.