TITLE I. COMPARATIVE MINING JURISPRUDENCE. CHAPTER I. MINING LAWS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. II. LOCAL STATE SYSTEMS. 21. Introductory.-To the student of the system of mining laws in force in the United States, a comparative review of the mining jurisprudence of the different countries of the world is not of controlling importance. The evolution and development of the American system have their parallels in the history of older nations; other countries have recognized and established by written codes the customs of mining communities, and it is by no means difficult to discover in some of the details of our own system the earmarks of ancient mining regulations: yet in construing our laws and applying them to existing conditions we will receive but little material aid from the experience or legal literature of other countries. While this is true, we must consider that the common law of England was to a certain extent grafted into our legal system when we separated from the mother country, and was, and still is, the rule of action in the absence of legislation, and that, at least in the earlier history of our government, English precedents were of controlling force. In this light, not only the English common law, but the rules governing the subject of mines in Great Britain, are worthy of at least passing comment. When we also consider that, approximately, all of our public mineral domain within the states and territories subject to the general federal mining laws was originally acquired by treaty or purchase from France and Mexico, wherein the civil law was the basis of jurisprudence, and that at the time of cession both of these nations had well-established and defined codes of mining law, it is apparent that a brief presentation of the laws of these ceding nations will not be out of place. We may confidently expect to find in the growth and development of our own system the influence of these laws. These considerations justify the author in presenting such a brief outline of the mining jurisprudence of these several countries as will enable us to note the theories of government upon which the laws are based, their salient features, and to observe to what extent, if any, they have left their impress upon the American law of mines. 2. Property in mines under the common law.— As a general rule, under the common law, minerals were the property of the owner of the land, the property in 1 Del Monte M. Co. v. Last Chance M. Co., 171 U. S. 55, 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 895; Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 935, 938. |