er to get the needed information for the courtroom, it may be
necessary to go further, and to conduct extensive underground
exploration under geologic direction. Some of the most intensive and
complete geological surveys of mineral resources in existence have been
done for litigation purposes. The study in these cases is not empirical,
but goes into every conceivable scientific aspect of the situation which
may throw any light on the underground conditions--the source of the
ores, the nature and source of the solutions which deposited them, their
paths of travel, the structural and metamorphic conditions, the
mineralogical and chemical character of the ores and rocks, and even
broader questions of geologic age. The many volumes of testimony which
have accumulated during famous apex trials cover almost every phase of
geology, and are important primary sources for the student of economic
geology.

It is often argued that strictly scientific, impartial geologic work is
impossible in connection with one of these trials, because the viewpoint
is warped by the desire to win. The sharp contrast in the views of
experts on the two sides is cited in evidence.

There is no denying the fact that the conditions of a trial tend toward
a certain warp in scientific perspective. On the other hand, the very
existence of competitive and opposing interests leads to the most
intensive detailed study, and to complete disclosure of the facts. In
most cases there are no substantial differences in the statements of
scientific fact by reputable experts on the two sides, although there
may be wide differences in the inferences drawn from these facts. The
failure to note a fact, or any distortion or misstatement of a fact, is
followed so quickly by correction or criticism from the other side, that
the professional witness usually takes the utmost pains to make his
statement of fact scientific and precise as far as his ability goes. Few
scientific treatises in geology contain any more accurate accounts of
mineral deposits than testimony in cases of this sort. If every student
of geology, early in his career, could have a day on the witness stand
on a geologic problem, under both direct and cross examination, he would
learn once and for all the necessity for close and accurate thinking,
the difference between a fact and an inference, and the difference
between inductive study of facts and the subjective approach to a
problem.

It is a common assu