mption that a witness called to testify on scientific
matters is on a somewhat different basis from the eye-witness to an
event or transaction. We are not sure that this assumption is justified.
Seldom is it possible in mining operations to disclose the facts in
three dimensions so completely that they may be empirically observed and
platted by the layman. The grouping and presentation of the facts in
adequate perspective require an analysis of the origin of the ores and
rocks, the rock alterations, the structural systems, and other facts. No
one ever saw the vein or lode in the process of formation. The true
nature of the event and of its physical results must be inferred
inductively from circumstantial evidence. If it be conceded that it is
necessary and right to call an eye-witness to an event involved in
litigation, it is equally necessary where there are no eye-witnesses to
call the persons best qualified to interpret the circumstantial
evidence.

It is to be remembered that apex cases are only one kind of a vast
variety of cases affecting mineral resources. At one time or another,
and in some connection or another, practically every geologist of
considerable experience has found it necessary to testify on geologic
matters in court. The wide interest attaching to certain spectacular
apex cases has led in some quarters to hasty criticism of the
participation of geologists therein, without apparent recognition of the
fact that the criticism applies in principle to many other kinds of
litigation and to practically all economic geologists. This criticism
also fails to take cognizance of the fact that, for every case tried,
there are many settled out of court through the advice and cooperation
of geologists. While there may be in the geologic profession, as in
others, a very few men whose testimony can be bought outright, in
general it must be assumed that geologists will appear on the witness
stand only when, after careful examination, they are satisfied that
there is a legitimate point of view to be presented.

Geologists and engineers understand more clearly than almost any other
group the extent to which the complexities of nature vary from the
conditions indicated in the simple wording of the law of extralateral
rights. Almost to a man, they favor either modification or repeal of the
law. On the other hand, the law has been in force since 1872, it has
been repeatedly interpreted and confirmed by the courts, and a