immediately eliminated, so far as the rights of the senior locator are concerned; for, as we have seen, those rights originated and were defined before any junior locator existed; in other words, they cannot be in any way affected by the line, ij, which did not exist when they began. We have, then, three possible boundaries for the rights of the senior locator on the vein, Y Y, as follows:

1. The location, a b c d, being perfectly normal by reason of its relation to the lode, X X, on which it is laid throughout, the endlines, a d and b c, are valid for XX and all other lodes crossing them both. But YY crosses both the side-lines; hence, by analogy of the Flagstaff decision, these side-lines become the end-lines for Y Y, and planes drawn through m b and q c will bound the rights on Y Y of the X X location.

I think this view is erroneous in ignoring the important fact that the Flagstaff decision deals with the located lode, and not with another lode apexing within the location. The difference is all-important; for if a location does not carry throughout its extent and across two parallel opposite boundary-lines the apex of the lode upon which it professes to be located, it does not present the conditions contemplated by the statutory definition of the extra-lateral loderight. But if the apex does thus cross two parallel opposite sides, the condition is fulfilled, though these sides may not have been called by the locator his end-lines. Thus, if a bed had been originally located upon a discovery of Y Y, and X X had been subsequently discovered, the Supreme Court might have said of it, according to the Flagstaff decision: "This location runs from m to q on the located lode, and a b and d c are its end-lines. It is too wide in the direction, a b. If this defect had been observed before the issue of a patent, the survey would doubtless have been rejected. As the title has passed from the United States, however, and no one but the United States is wronged by the grant, the surface-rights will stand unless the Government takes proceedings to reclaim the excess. They cannot be attacked in any collateral proceeding. But the legal endlines of a location are determined, not by naming them, but by their relation to the located lode. Hence, planes through a b and d c bound the rights of this location." This I understand to be the Flagstaff doctrine.

It will be observed that I have introduced into this hypothetical decision a reference to the patent as barring any further change of surface-lines on the motion of adverse interests. It is true that the patent adds nothing to the rights of a locator, but it settles their

boundaries and basis, cutting off all prosecution of adverse claims to the surface granted. Prior to the final patent proceedings, I think the Land Office might legally, of its own motion, reject as too wide such a location as a b c d if laid on Y Y as the located lode; or adverse claimants might demand its reduction to the maximum width on both sides of Y Y allowed by law. But I have not heard of any such case. After patent, the Government is not likely, and private parties are not competent, to interfere.

But the case is very different when the valid end-lines of a location have once been fixed by the crossing of the apex of the located lode. Vertical planes through these lines constitute the boundaries for all other lodes, as well as for the located lode, within the claim. Consequently, to return to the original proposition represented in Fig. 2, the claim, a b c d, located on the vein, XX, has, once for all, the endlines, a d, bc; and the rights of the locator upon all lodes within it are somehow related to planes through those two end-lines. The side-lines, a b, c d, play no part in this connection.

2. Or, secondly, since planes through the end-lines, a d, b c, cannot intersect the points, m and q, which are the boundaries of the apex-right, their direction may be taken as a guide, and the boundaryplanes on Y Y of the X X locator may be drawn through m p, q r.

3. Or, finally, z z and q 8, which are independent of all the surveyed lines, and represent either the direction of the dip determined at m and assumed at q, or determined at q and assumed at m, or determined at both places, or averaged throughout the distance, m q, and thus settled, or fixed by arbitrary judgment, or compromise agreement, or jury verdict, may be the lines through which the boundary-planes are drawn. This is the principle of the Amy and Silversmith decision, discussed in my former paper, cited above, only in that case the court had an easy time determining the dip of Y Y, because it took the direction at m only. Probably, when q comes to be exposed, if the dip there should not be parallel to mp, it will be ignored. For one thing is sure-the end-boundaries must be parallel.

I do not propose to discuss this third proposition, having already expressed and explained my dissent from it. Everything that refers the miner's title to such indefinite and variable marks as the underground developments may reveal is objectionable. Proposition No. 2 seems to me preferable for certainty, convenience, substantial equity, substantial compliance with the intent of the law, and conformity with the utterances of the Supreme Court thus far.

But what I wish to point out here is that the underground boundary of the rights of the senior locator is not necessarily the boundary also of the rights of the junior. If the plane through a b be the boundary, then such is indeed the case, for that plane cuts off a section which his projected end-line, ij, would include, and, of course, he retains all that is not cut off. But boundaries through m p or m z would not leave to the junior locator all that they did not give to the senior. For the locator of efij cannot possibly claim anything on the dip of Y Y not between the planes, ef and i jo. We thus have under propositions No. 2 and No. 3 respectively the triangles, p m o and z mo, which do not belong by apex-right to either locator. So far as they underlie the X X location, they belong to it by surfaceright. Outside of that location they belong to the owner of the adjoining surface.

We reach, then, this important conclusion-that the imaginary. boundaries of an overlapping location may limit the junior without affecting the senior locator. Under the new practice, as shown in Fig. 2, ij is the maximum limit. Under the old practice, as shown in efh g, Fig. 1, ij is still the maximum limit, so far as the loderights on Y Y are concerned. And the junior rights may be curtailed within that limit. This would be the case if No. 1 of the propositions just discussed were accepted, and a b became the senior boundary-plane for the extra-lateral right on Y Y. I have, however, explained my opinion that No. 1 is erroneous. Under No. 2 (boundary-line, m p) the junior location is safe enough in the case supposed in Fig. 2, where the lode, Y Y, dips towards fj; but let the dip be towards e i, and the boundary, m t, parallel to r u and d a, cuts off a good deal that j i would include; and the same is true of z z under proposition No. 3 on a similarly modified dip.

In any case of legal conflict, in the nature of an action for trespass or ejectment or summary equity remedy, involving such boundary questions as are here discussed, the force of an imaginary boundary will be greatly affected by the relative position of the parties as plaintiff or defendant, and the position of the "burden of proof" as to title, which is determined by the pleadings. Thus, with regard to the two points, W V, Fig. 2, supposed to be on the dip of Y Y underground (it being also supposed, to avoid complication, that X X dips much more flatly, and the two veins do not intersect in this part of the ground, or, in other words, X X being ignored), it is clear that the senior locator could easily, as plaintiff, expel the junior from W, not by virtue of the apex-right, m q, but by virtue of the sur

face-right of the claim; for, this once proved by the introduction of the documentary evidence, the junior, as defendant, would have to produce affirmative proof of an apex-right to overcome it, which he could not do, because of the limit set by the line, i o. On the other hand, neither of these two parties could eject the other from V on the dip of YY, because neither could make positive proof of title to V.

No matter how far a junior claim may have been, under the old Land Office practice, extended over a senior, the legal effect of its imaginary boundaries can be ascertained by reducing it to the type, efji, Figs. 1 and 2, by drawing parallel to the exterior end-line a new end-line through the intersection of the apex of the lode with the boundary of the senior claim. In such reduced form the overlap has no further significance, and the end-line limits the locator himself, but not his senior neighbor.

How shall a case be dealt with in which both ends of a claim overlap senior claims, and both end-lines are, consequently, imaginary? I presume, by drawing two new end-lines parallel to the old through the two extremities of the apex-right of the junior claimant. It is pleasant to know that such preposterous locations will not be permitted hereafter.

THE GEOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL NOVA SCOTIA MINERALS.

BY E. GILPIN, JR., HALIFAX, N. S.

(Ottawa Meeting, October, 1889.)

ANY estimate of the economic mineral value of an unvisited district is to the mining engineer largely a comparative one. If he knows that certain minerals characterize any given geological horizon he naturally draws upon his experience of the same ores as met by him under similar geological conditions. And if he has not had the personal experience, the investigation of the geology of a similar district as given in a trustworthy report enables him to lay a fair basis for conclusions.

In a general way these conclusions are of value, and while they pronounce on the possible mineral fecundity of a given district, they

often give a decided rebuttal to startling statements of discoveries of

ores.

The number of the geological horizons in Nova Scotia is limited, but they are well developed, in some cases typically, and exert a prominent effect on the agricultural and industrial distribution of its inhabitants.

The following table, based on Sir John William Dawson's Acadian Geology, will serve as an outline for my notes:

This list is intended to refer rather to the divisions known to contain ores, than to be a complete geological scale of the province.

Geographically speaking, in Nova Scotia proper these divisions are represented as follows: On the Atlantic coast are the Cambrian of the gold-fields with their associated granites. Then follow the measures of the Cobequids running through Cumberland, Pictou, Colchester and Antigonishe counties, supporting Silurian and Devonian strata, the latter being met also in the western part of the province. The Carboniferous occupies the Gulfshore, and much of the district surrounding the Basin of Minas. The Triassic measures are met in narrow fringes and outliers around the Bay of Fundy. In Cape Breton the northern part of the island is largely composed of Laurentian, which occurs also between the arms of the Bras d'Or Lake. The Carboniferous rests on it, and forms fringes, while it is replaced in Richmond county by several large areas of Devonian. Taking the divisions in descending order, their best known minerals are:

Modern.-Beds of bog iron-ore, manganese wad, peat, infusorial earth and clays are frequently met. A number of years ago the iron-ore was smelted in connection with older ores, at Clementsport