BOOK IV.

83

over not only the head meer, or another meer, but also the head meer andthe next meer or two adjoining meers. So much for the shape of meersand 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 oreregardless of the surface (the “ apex ” conception), and that in which the boundaries werevertical from the land surface. Lest the Americans think that the Apex Law was asin original to themselves, we may mention that it was made use of in Europe a few centuriesbefore 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 onvarious ancient laws of mines, though space forbids a discussion of a tithe of the amount itdeserves at some experienced hand.

Of the Ancient Egyptian, Lydian, Assyrian, Persian, Indian, and Chinese laws as tomines we have no record, but they were of great simplicity, for the bodies as well as the propertyof subjects were at the abject disposition of the Overlord. We are informed on countless occasionsof Emperors, Kings, and Princes of various degree among these races, owning and operatingmines with convicts, soldiers, or other slaves, so we may take it for certain that continuouslabour was enforced, and that the boundaries, inspection, and landlords did not cause muchanxiety. However, herein lies the root of regalian right.

Our first glimpse of a serious right of the subject to mines is among some of the GreekStates, as could be expected from their form of government. With republican ideals, a richmining 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 theactive operation of these mines extended over some 500 years, from 700 to 200 b.c., the periodof most literary reference was from 400 to 300 b.c. Our information on the subject is from twoof Demosthenes’ orations—one against Pantaenetus, the other against Phaenippis—the firstmining 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 referencesand inscriptions of minor order. The minerals were the property of the State, a conceptionapparently 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 previouslyworked, thus a special advantage was conferred upon the pioneer. The leases did not carrysurface rights, but the boundaries at Mt. Laurion were vertical, as necessarily must be the caseeverywhere 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 wasrequired to pay a large tribute to the State, either in the initial purchase of his lease or inannual rent. There were elaborate regulations as to interference and encroachment, andproper 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 alreadymined. The latter was obviously the objective of most Roman conquest, and those nationsrich in these commodities, at that time necessarily possessed their own mines. Thus a mapshowing 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 theperiphery 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 lawof 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 topublic 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, althoughapparently never very specifically defined, yet formed a basis of support to the contentionof regalian rights in Europe later on. Parallel with this system, mines were discoveredand worked by individuals under tithe to the State, and in Pliny (xxxiv, 49) there is refer-ence to the miners in Britain limiting their own output. Individual mining appearsto have increased with any relaxation of central authority, as for instance underAugustus. It appears, as a rule, that the mines were held on terminable leases,und 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 knowless than of the Greeks—in fact, practically nothing other than that he paid a tithe. TheRomans maintained in each mining district an official—the Procurator Metallorum —who+1?^ 0nlyhad 8 ene ral charge of the leasing of the mines on behalf of the State, but was usuallyhe 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 theregrdntion 5 of the mining district. It refers mostly to the regulation of public auctions,he baths, barbers, and tradesmen ; but one clause (vn.) is devoted to the regulation of those