THE LODE QUESTION. 119 



the quartzite and the Ruby Hill fault. Prof. R. Pumpelly also has pub- 

 lished, in Johnson's Encyclopedia, a classification of ore deposits according 

 to which, however, the ore deposits of Ruby Hill as a whole would be as 

 far removed from typical veins as in the other systems. Some of the ore 

 bodies in the limestone wedge are well-defined veins, and when they con- 

 nect with each other they can be considered as parts of the same lode. 



Miners' definition of iode. — Nevertheless, it will be conceded that the miners' 

 definition of the word lode, however indefinite it may be, has a much more 

 comprehensive meaning. Dr. Raymond, in his testimony in the Richmond 

 and Eureka lawsuit," says: "The whole subject of the classification of min- 

 eral deposits is one in which the interests of the miner have entirely over- 

 ridden the reasonings of the chemists and geologists. The miners made 

 the definition first. As used by miners before being defined by an)- au- 

 thority it [lode] simply meant that formation by which the miner could be 

 led or guided. It is an alteration of the word lead; and whatever the 

 miner could follow, expecting to find ore, was his lode. Some formation, 

 within which he could find ore and out of which he could not expect to 

 find ore, was his lode." The mining law of the United States as interpreted 

 by the courts also gives a broader signification to the word lode 



Necessity of a better classification of ore deposits. The different definitions of tllC WOl'd 



lode have given rise to a great deal of discussion in the courts, and a classifi- 

 cation of ore deposits which would reconcile the adverse views would tend 

 to simplify the question for the miner, the lawyer, and the geologist. Mr. 

 S. F. Emmons, 6 while introducing the classifications of Messrs. von Cotta, 

 Grimm, von Groddeck, and Pumpelly, in his abstract of a report upon 

 Leadville, Colorado, recognizes the necessity of a more satisfactory classifi- 

 cation. He says: "That the difference of origin and manner of formation 

 should be a more important factor in the classification of ore deposits than 

 has been the case hitherto is generally admitted, but, owing to the fact that 

 the definite determination of such origin requires more laborious and ex- 

 pensive investigations, especially from a chemical point of view, than geolo- 

 gists are in general able or willing to make, trustworthy data are as yet too 

 meager to form a basis for a general classification from this standpoint." 



« Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 1058 and 1059, p. 210. 



'Second Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, p. 233. 



