BOOK IV. 83 



over not only the head meer, or another meer, but also the head meer and 

 the next meer or two adjoining meers. So much for the shape of meets 

 and their dimensions in the case of a vena profunda. 



I now come to the case of venae dilatatae. The boundaries of the areas 



soil. Therefore, we find two forms of title — that in which the miner could follow the ore 

 regardless of the surface (the " apex " conception), and that in which the boundaries were 

 vertical from the land surface. Lest the Americans think that the Apex Law was a 

 sin original to themselves, we may mention that it was made use of in Europe a few centuries 

 before Agricola, who will be found to set it out with great precision. 



From these points of view, more philosophical than legal, we present a few notes on 

 various ancient laws of mines, though space forbids a discussion of a tithe of the amount it 

 deserves at some experienced hand. 



Of the Ancient Egyptian, Lydian, Assyrian, Persian, Indian, and Chinese laws as to 

 mines we have no record, but they were of great simplicity, for the bodies as well as the property 

 of subjects were at the abject disposition of the Overlord. We are informed on countless occasions 

 of Emperors, Kings, and Princes of various degree among these races, owning and operating 

 mines with convicts, soldiers, or other slaves, so we may take it for certain that continuous 

 labour wais enforced, and that the boundaries, inspection, and landlords did not cause much 

 anxiety. However, herein lies the root of regalian right. 



Our first ghmpse of a serious right of the subject to mines is among some of the Greek 

 States, as could be expected from their form of government. With republican ideals, a rich 

 mining district at Mount Laurion, an enterprising and contentious people, it would be sur- 

 prising indeed if Athenian Literature was void on the subject. While we know that the 

 active operation of these mines extended over some 500 years, from 700 to 200 B.C., the period 

 of most literary reference was from 400 to 300 B.C. Our information on the subject is from two 

 of Demosthenes' orations — one against Pantaenetus, the other against Phaenippis — the first 

 mining lawsuit in which the address of counsel is extant. There is also available some infor- 

 mation in Xenophon's Essay upon the Revenues, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, 

 Lycurgus' prosecution of Diphilos, the Tablets of the Poletae, and many incidental references 

 and inscriptions of minor order. The minerals were the property of the State, a conception 

 apparently inherited from the older civilizations. Leases for exploitation were granted to indi- 

 viduals for terms of three to ten years, depending upon whether the mines had been previously 

 worked, thus a special advantage was conferred upon the pioneer. The leases did not carry 

 surface rights, but the boundaries at Mt. Laurion were vertical, as necessarily must be the case 

 everywhere in horizontal deposits. What they were elsewhere we do not know. The land- 

 lord apparently got nothing. The miner must continuously operate his mine, and was 

 required to pay a large tribute to the State, either in the initial purchase of his lease or in 

 annual rent. There were elaborate regulations as to interference and encroachment, and 

 proper support of the workings. Diphilos was condemned to death and his fortune con- 

 fiscated for robbing pillars. The mines were worked with slaves. 



The Romans were most intensive miners and searchers after metallic wealth already 

 mined. The latter was obviously the objective of most Roman conquest, and those nations 

 rich in these commodities, at that time necessarily possessed their own mines. Thus a map 

 showing the extensions of Empire coincides in an extraordinary manner with the metal dis- 

 tribution of Europe, Asia, and North Africa. Further, the great indentations into the 

 periphery of the Imperial map, though many were rich from an agricultural point of view, 

 had no lure to the Roman because they had no mineral wealth. On the Roman law 

 of mines the student is faced with many perplexities. With the conquest of the older States, 

 the plunderers took over the mines and worked them, either by leases from the State to 

 public companies or to individuals ; or even in some cases worked them directly by the State. 

 There was thus maintained the concept of State ownership of the minerals which, although 

 apparently never very specifically defined, yet formed a basis of support to the contention 

 of regalian rights in Europe later on. Parallel with this system, mines were discovered 

 and worked by individuals under tithe to the State, and in Phny (xxxiv, 49) there is refer- 

 ence to the miners in Britain Umiting their own output. Individual mining appears 

 to have increased with any relaxation of central authority, as for instance under 

 Augustus. It appears, as a rule, that the mines were held on terminable leases, 

 and that the State did at times resume them ; the labour was mostly slaves. 

 As to the detailed conditions under which the mine operator held his title, we know 

 less than of the Greeks — in fact, practically nothing other than that he paid a tithe. The 

 Romans maintained in each mining district an official — the Procurator Metallorum — who 

 not only had general charge of the leasing of the mines on behalf of the State, but was usually 

 the magistrate of the district. A bronze tablet found near Aljustrel, in Portugal, in 1876, 

 generally known as the Aljustrel Tablet, appears to be the third of a series setting out the 

 regulations of the mining district It refers mostly to the regulation of public auctions, 

 the baths, barbers, and tradesmen ; but one clause (vii.) is devoted to the regulation of those 



