vast body
of property rights has been established under it. Lawyers see great
legal difficulties in the way of its repeal or serious modification.
Mining men for the most part are not primarily interested one way or
another, unless there is potential application of the extralateral-rights
provision to their particular properties. Of those who are thus interested,
some hope to gain and some fear they may lose in the application of the
law. The general public naturally has little direct interest in the
problem. There is thus no effective public sentiment favoring the repeal
or modification of the law. It seems likely that for some time to come the
law, in spite of its recognized defects, must be applied, and the best
geological effort must be directed toward reaching interpretations which
come most near to meeting its intent. To refuse to lend geologic science
to the aid of justice because the law was improperly framed is hardly a
defensible position. Presumably it will never be possible to frame laws
with such full knowledge of nature's facts as to eliminate the necessity
for scientific advice in their interpretation.

It has been suggested that the courts, and not the litigants, should
employ the geologists. The practical objection to this proposition lies
in the difficulty encountered by the judge in the proper selection of
geologists. On the assumption that the judge would select only men in
whom he had confidence, it is not likely that he would override their
conclusions. The outcome of the case, therefore, would be largely
predetermined at the moment the selection of experts was made. It is to
be doubted whether courts can have the knowledge of the scientific field
and of the requirements of the situation necessary to make the wisest
selection of men to interpret the given condition. The competitive
element would be eliminated. From a judicial standpoint, there seems to
be an equally good chance of getting at the best interpretation of the
facts by listening to presentations from different standpoints, with the
accompanying interplay of criticism and questioning.

Another practical objection to appointment of experts by the court is
the limitation of court costs, which would make it impossible to secure
the highest grade men. So far as these men are public employees, such as
members of the federal or state geological surveys, this might be
arranged. For others, it might be suggested that they should be willing
to s