FIG. 77. Example of the crossing of veins (a and b), and (2) where the veins intersect or cross on their dip for example, where a perpendicular vein is intersected below the surface by a vein whose dip is 45 deg., but whose strike is the same or approximately the same as that of the perpendicular vein (Fig. 78). The first case involving this section of the statute which came before any court seems to be Branagan vs. Dulaney, 8 Colo., 408. The court says: "Strange as it may seem, the question here presented has never, to our knowledge at least, been passed upon either by the Supreme Court of the U. S., or by the supreme court of any State. . . . The only question presented by the record before us is, What are the respective rights of the parties under the above sections in respect to the ownership of minerals and the right of way when a junior location crosses a senior location and the veins thereof are cross-veins ?''' This is the situation (1), referred to above; and the court, although recognizing the fact that under section 2322 of the Revised Statutes which gives the locator of a mining claim all the veins, lodes, and ledges the tops or apexes of which lie inside of the surface lines of such claim the senior claim would take all the cross veins, nevertheless holds that there is a conflict between this section and section 2336, and that by the common rule of statutory interpretation, where there is a conflict between two sections of the same statute the latter section prevails, decides that the cross vein, except the place of intersection, belongs to the junior claim. This decision was followed by two others in Colorado.13 This became known as a Colorado doctrine, but was not followed in any other State or jurisdiction and was criticized in several decisions in other States. The Colorado supreme court finally recognized the unsoundness of this doctrine, and when the question again came before it, in the case of Calhoun, etc., Co. vs. Ajax, etc., Co., 27 Colo., 1, it repudiated this doctrine, saying: "The law, as announced in Branagan vs. Dulaney, has led to much confusion, and has been a fruitful source of litigation. . . . Our conclusion is, that the provisions of section 2336, applied to location made under the Act of 1872 as well as before, referred to the intersection or crossing of veins either upon their dip or strike." and then decides that the junior locator can only work his vein when the intersection is upon the dip, because, if the intersection 13 Lee vs. Stahl, 9 Colo., 208; Morgenson vs. Middlesex, etc., Co., 11 Colo., 176. was upon the strike, the apex of his vein would come within the lines of the senior location and would belong to that location. The uniform course of the decisions of other States has been the same. The same question came before the Supreme Court in the case of Calhoun, etc., Co. vs. Ajax, etc., Co., 182 U. S., 499, in which the court decided in agreement with the lower courts, as outlined above, that the junior locator has no rights when the intersection of his vein with the vein of the senior location is upon the strike, but that the above-cited section of the statute only applied where the intersection is upon the dip, saying: "Section 2336 imposes a servitude upon the senior location, but does not otherwise affect the exclusive rights given the senior locator." 14 Rule. Even though a junior location overlaps a senior location (which the courts hold is permissible) such junior location has no rights in any vein contained therein after such vein crosses, on its strike, into the boundaries of an overlapped senior location. Section 2336 of the Revised Statutes, concerning intersecting veins, only applies where veins intersect on the dip and the apexes are in different claims. In Colorado and Montana the owner of the junior claim has the right to drift on the vein in the part thereof which is within the senior location, but must give up the ore obtained in doing so to the owner of the senior claim. In California and Arizona he has no such right. HORIZONTAL VEINS As we have before remarked, the theory of the statute seems to be that mineral deposits are found in veins or lodes which extend downward in directions which depart more or less from the perpendicular, but which neither closely approach nor become horizontal. The case of a vein which is horizontal was apparently not in the mind of the legislators, and, indeed, it is probable that at the date of the passage of the statute of 1872 no instance was known of a vein which assumed a horizontal or even an approximately horizontal direction. However, in 1879 the ques 14 Watervale, etc., Co. vs. Leach, 33 Pac., 418; Van Zant vs. Argentine M., etc., Co., 8 Fed., 727, 2 McCrary, 159; Wilhelm vs. Silvester, 101 Calif., 358; Atkens vs. Hendree, 1 Idaho, 95: Pardee vs. Murray, 4 Mont., 234, 2 Pac., 16. tion of veins in such situations came prominently before the courts on account of the discovery of the great ore deposits of Leadville, Colo. Here silver ore was found in connection with iron-impregnated strata which were frequently horizontal or very FAULT FIG. 79. Map of the claims, outcrop and workings on North Iron Hill, PORPHYRY VEIN LIMESTONE FIG. 80. Section along the line A-B of Fig. 79 showing nearly horizontal vein. From Monograph xii, U. S. G. S. nearly horizontal in direction. The position of the ore deposits in this district is illustrated in Figs. 79 and 80, taken from Emmons' great Monograph on Leadville and its ore deposits. 14 The first shows the claims and the outcrop of the deposit or vein on 14a Monog. xii, Geology and Mining Industry of Leadville, Colo., S. F. Emmons (U. S. Geol. Surv.). B North Iron Hill. The second is a geologic section of the formations beneath the surface along the line A-B, which is the common boundary between the Camp Bird and Pine. As this shows, the vein, which is a stratum of limestone partially replaced by iron and impregnated in places with silver and lead ore, is almost horizontal. There were many other similar veins or deposits in the district; and some of these were, at places, horizontal. There was a very strong local feeling in the district against allowing extralateral rights to the fortunate claims which were located on the outcrop of the vein. It was contended by the miners that these deposits were not included in the veins or lodes granted extralateral rights by the statute. It is stated that this feeling was so strong that it was impossible for the owners of the apexes of these deposits to gain their rights in the courts by FIG. 80a. Horizontal deposits. Vertical E. and W. section means of a jury trial. For, although the law might be correctly stated in the instructions, the jury would nevertheless decide that the ore-body in dispute in the particular case was not a vein or lode, and consequently deprive it of extralateral rights. At first, the lower courts took the position that, if the vein was exactly horizontal, no extralateral rights would accrue to such vein, but that it must be governed by the provisions relating to placer claims. The court says, in the case of Stevens vs. Williams, 1 McCrary, 480 Fed. Cas., 13,413: "If there is any departure from a horizontal position it is sufficient" [to give extralateral rights.] Again, in Leadville Co. vs. Fitzgerald, 4 Morr. Min. Rep., 38, Fed. Cas., 8158, the same court says: "It is conceded that if the vein |