Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber's Notes : (1) Obvious misspellings, punctuation faults and misprints have been corrected. (2) Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ (3) Subscripts are denoted by an _underscore followed by the symbol in {braces} (4) "Par/Share" = Par Value per Share, in the table of share values

THE BUSINESS
OF MINING

A BRIEF, NON-TECHNICAL EXPOSITION
OF THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THE
PROFITABLE OPERATION OF MINES

BY

ARTHUR J. HOSKIN, M.E.,

CONSULTING AND GENERAL MINING ENGINEER; WESTERN EDITOR, "MINES
AND MINERALS"; FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF MINING, COLORADO SCHOOL
OF MINES; MEMBER, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MINING ENGINEERS;
MEMBER, COLORADO SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY

_WITH 16 FULL PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS AND ONE CHART_

PHILADELPHIA & LONDON

J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY

1912

COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY

PUBLISHED JULY, 1912

PRINTED BY J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY

AT THE WASHINGTON SQUARE PRESS

PHILADELPHIA, U.S.A.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

INTRODUCTION 1

I. WHAT IS A MINE? 4

II. WHAT IS MINING? 12

III. THE ANTIQUITY OF MINING 22

IV. MINING'S PLACE IN COMMERCE 28

V. THE FINDING OF MINES 39

VI. MINING CLAIMS 46

VII. PLACERING 60

VIII. OPEN MINING 72

IX. CONSIDERATIONS PRECEDING THE OPENING OF MINES 78

X. MINE OPENINGS 93

XI. TYPES OF ORE BODIES 107

XII. THE QUESTIONS OF DEPTH AND GRADES OF ORE 115

XIII. VALUATION OF MINING PROPERTY 129

XIV. THE MINE PROMOTER 134

XV. INCORPORATION AND CAPITALIZATION 140

XVI. MINING INVESTMENTS 148

XVII. MINE EQUIPMENTS 154

XVIII. MINE MANAGEMENT 162

XIX. PRICES OF METALS 170

XX. MINE ACCOUNTING 179

XXI. INVESTMENT IN MINING STOCKS 185

XXII. THE MEN OF THE FUTURE IN MINING 202

XXIII. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS 210

CAPITALIZATION AND DIVIDENDS OF NORTH
AMERICAN METAL MINES 216

INDEX 221

ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE
UTAH COPPER COMPANY'S OPEN PIT MINE, BINGHAM, UTAH _Frontispiece_

HACKETT MINE AND MILL, JOPLIN, MO. 12

COAL WASHING PLANT, PANA, ILLINOIS 16

UNIVERSAL MINE, CLINTON, IND. 20

KENNEDY MINE, JACKSON, CAL. 30

A GILPIN COUNTY, COL., SCENE 52

DREDGES OF YUBA CONSOLIDATED GOLDFIELDS, HAMMONTON,
CAL. 66

THE SNOWSTORM PLACER, FAIRPLAY, COL. 70

STEAM SHOVELS AND CHURN DRILLS, COPPER FLAT, ELY,
NEV. 74

MILL OF THE PITTSBURG-SILVER PEAK GOLD MINING
CO., BLAIR, NEV. 88

MILLS AND SHAFT HOUSE OF DALY WEST MINE, PARK
CITY, UTAH 100

SHAFT NO. 3, TAMARACK MINING CO., CALUMET, MICH. 114

SMELTERY OF THE BALAKLALA CONSOLIDATED COPPER
CO., CORAM, CAL. 114

WASHOE REDUCTION WORKS OF THE ANACONDA COPPER
MINING CO., ANACONDA, MONT. 118

MILL OF THE ROODEPOORT-UNITED MINES, TRANSVAAL,
SOUTH AFRICA 148

SPRAY SHAFT HOUSE OF COPPER QUEEN CONSOLIDATED
MINING CO., BISBEE, ARIZ. 160

DIAGRAM OF METAL MARKET FOR ONE-THIRD OF A CENTURY 178

FLORENCE MINE AND MILL, GOLDFIELD, NEV. 200

THE BUSINESS OF MINING

INTRODUCTION

There is probably no line of human activity that is not beset with malicious and ignorant intruders. The fact that any occupation or business is really legitimate seems often to stimulate the operations of these disreputable persons.

Mining does not escape the application of this postulate. For ages, the industry has afforded most fertile opportunities for the machinations of the unscrupulous and the erring. Somehow, there weaves throughout the history of mining a sort of magnetism rendering us unduly susceptible to the allurements which are presented with every mining proposition.

It is not, however, always intentional deceit that is perpetrated upon the unwary. Often, mining failures result from actual ignorance of the business upon the part of those entrusted with its conduct, or if not from actual lack of knowledge, then from erroneous conceptions with the consequent misapplication of honest endeavor. A victim of such misplaced faith is perhaps more leniently inclined than is the person who has been duped by a "shark," but the effect upon the great industry is hurtful in either case.

The purpose of this short monograph will be served if the author can feel assured that his readers will finish its perusal with the belief that mining may be followed as a business with just as much assurance of success as attaches to any one of the many lines of industrial activity. Many persons who have sustained losses in mining ventures deserve no sympathy whatever, since they have not exercised even the simplest precautions. So long as men--or women--will take as fact the word of any untrained or inexperienced individual concerning investments, just so long will there be resultant financial losses, no matter what the line of business. Because there have been elements of chance observed in the records of mining, this business appeals to the speculative side of our human natures, with the result that untold numbers of individuals have had ample reason to regret their ventures. But, as will be found in the text matter, mining can be relied upon with precisely as much assurance as can any other business.

Nothing of a technical or engineering sort has been attempted herein, the sole aim of the writer being to establish the reliability and the credit of the mining industry as a whole by pointing out the lines of conduct which should be followed by those who enter its precincts as business people. When investors of small or large means will put their money into mining projects with the same precautions that they would exercise in placing their cash in other enterprises, they will be rewarded with corresponding remuneration. In this firm conviction, then, this little work is dedicated to the intelligence of American laymen in mining matters.

I

WHAT IS A MINE?

Before entering into a discussion of the economic features of the mining industry, it will be well to be sure that we understand, definitely, what is meant by mining. As one investigates the question, he is bound to run across varying shades of meaning for the words _Mine_ and _Mining_, and so we must pause long enough to define these words according to the best usages.

A search through works on mining written at various periods reveals differing ideas that have prevailed among authors. Less than a hundred years ago, it was said that a mine "consists of subterranean workings from which valuable minerals are extracted." One early writer said that a mine is one only when the operations are conducted in the absence of daylight. As time has created new fields for the industry, we find that ideas concerning the meaning of the word mine have necessarily altered, until now (according to The Coal and Metal Miners' Pocketbook), we may think of a mine as "any excavation made for the extraction of minerals." Under this definition, we properly think of the rather unusual operations of marketing coal right from the surface of the earth, in eastern Kansas, as mining. There is, in this case, no covering of earth above the workmen; neither are the operations necessarily carried on at night to avoid the illumination of the sun.

So, also, placers are now correctly spoken of as mines, although but a few years ago there was drawn a strict line, eliminating such worked deposits from the category of mines. One may still run across a few men who are sticklers upon the point that a placer is not a mine. Throughout the world, at the present time, there are many places where immense deposits of valuable minerals are being excavated from open pits by out-of-doors methods, and our common term for these places is mines. Thus, in Minnesota, in that wonderful Lake Superior country, that is famous as the world's greatest known producer of iron ore, tremendous tonnages are handled every year by the modern steam shovel, which works in natural light by day and by electric lamps at night. In Utah and Nevada we find similar operations conducted in the excavation of copper ores. In Australia, the famous Mount Morgan mine is using open air methods in the mining of precious metal ore.

But what about quarries from which are taken building stone, salt, kaolin or clay? Are not such substances of the mineral kingdom? Here we run across a hitch in the definition quoted above; for while we hear of "salt mines" (not "salted mines"), our parlance has not, as yet, warranted this term except for such excavations of salt as are carried on in subterranean deposits; and it is quite out of place to speak of stone or clay mines.

Evidently we must pass through another transition in our conceptions about mines, or we must permit quarries and pits to be included within our realm of mines. At the present time, the prevailing practice of the men best qualified in such matters is to designate as mines those workings from which only coal, metallic ores, or gems are extracted. Hence, we should not speak of a slate, sulphur, mica, clay or phosphate mine.

And yet, with all the above restriction in our nomenclature, we have not reached one very important consideration, one which we have been approaching for a number of years and which, of late, has been met and forcibly applied by the best men in the profession of mining engineering.

An excavation that will produce coal, metals or gems is not necessarily a mine. The simple fact that a man can get some gold-bearing dirt from a hole in the ground does not mean that he has a mine. The occasional finding of a diamond on the sidewalks of a great city does not give anybody the impression that city sidewalks are diamond mines. There are many places in which small amounts of combustible coal can be scratched from its natural depository, but no company appears to think highly enough of these seams to install machinery and to carry on operations. In the eastern part of Kentucky there are well-defined deposits of lead-bearing baryta, though, up to date, their development has not proved successful. In Brazil there are known to be very rich areas of placer ground, and still the deposits are not worked. A friend of the writer discovered some very good gold-bearing gravels in Alaska, but he was unable to mine.

There is something besides the presence of valuable minerals and the ability to win them from their natural matrices that is essential to a mine. It is here, in our considerations of the mining industry, that we come into real economic notions for the first time. Yes, according to the latest ideas, we are wrong in stating that any worked or workable mineral deposit is a mine, _if it does not contain possibilities of profitable working_. This is now the prime thought of every up-to-date mining manager or engineer. It is this notion that will distinguish a mine from a prospect. The prospect may become a mine by proving itself profitably workable: if it simply carries values which cannot be realized to advantage, then it must continue as a mere prospect. There are cases of properties which possess rich deposits and which are loosely called mines. These properties may be observed to be erratic in their productiveness, owing to the very pockety nature of the deposits; and the owners, although they do, indeed, strike occasional handsome bonanzas, expend all the profits of such finds--or even greater amounts--in searching for other pockets. Is such work profitable? Is it mining?

The trouble with the cited placers of South America is that climatic, hygienic and political conditions have been antagonistic to successful working: the ground is rich, but it cannot be handled to make money. In the case of the Alaska gravels, there was no available, though essential, water supply. The Kentucky galena cannot be economically separated from the containing heavy spar. Coal, which is sold at comparatively low figures per ton, must be handled at the mines in large quantities to pay, so that a thin seam or a scattered deposit is not suitable for mining.

Under these restrictions of our new definitions, we run across many interesting points. For instance, one may ask the question about the old abandoned hole in the ground which is occasionally found by prospectors, "Is it a mine?" The answer can be simply another query as to whether the hole was abandoned because it contained no value, or because, containing value, it could not be profitably worked. As we think of mines nowadays, we can conceive several reasons why, before the advent of transportation lines and the invention of modern metallurgical processes and many forms of labor-saving machinery now so common in and about mines, many very rich deposits may have been necessarily forsaken by their discoverers. But such a property would, if now worked, probably prove highly profitable. We thus note that there exists some elasticity in the meaning of the word mine. An unprofitable project at one time may develop into a mine at a later period. Many gold mines have become worthless propositions merely through changes in the ore that have rendered further work unremunerative.

II

WHAT IS MINING?

Having considered the accepted definition of a mine, let us now extend our reasoning a little and inquire just what is meant by mining. At first thought, one would say that mining is, in a broad sense, the art or practice of excavating, at a profit, the ores of metals, the beds of coal, the gravels of placers and the deposits containing precious stones. Are we justified in letting this definition stand as it is? If we do not make any change, we must exclude all quarries, sand banks, clay pits, and the numerous sorts of works that are producing the non-metallic minerals of commerce. Very well, since we find good usage will warrant us, we will do so.

Still, there are other pertinent questions arising. Does the practice of mining cover the treatment of the excavated products? Here we run across a mooted point. The British and the American uses of the word mining seem to be a bit different in this regard. Upon the Rand, South Africa, a territory dominated by Englishmen, every mine is equipped with its own mill, and all notions of mining cover the inseparable idea of local ore treatment. Here, in our country, there are many, many mines which have absolutely no means of treating their own products and the managers give no thought whatever to metallurgical or milling lines. There are, on the other hand, many companies that have erected private plants at their mines for the extraction of metallic contents from the ores. Here it may, or it may not, happen that the operations of mining are considered as distinct from those of treatment. In some instances, as at the Tonopah Mining Company's plants, there is separate superintendence of the milling and the mining; but in the Joplin, Missouri, zinc region one superintendent looks after the running of a mine and its omnipresent mill.

There may be drawn a sharp distinction between what is really mining and what is the subsequent treatment of the ores for the extraction of values. The latter field is denoted _Metallurgy_ when the operations are of such a nature as to actually recover or extract metallic products or metals. If the treatment process has for its object merely the rejection of some of the worthless materials in the original ore, thus causing a concentration of the valuable minerals, but without actually obtaining any metal, then the term _Ore Dressing_ is warranted. At some mines, there is maintained a practice of culling out, often by hand, a certain percentage of the obviously worthless ingredients of the ore before shipping the products to treatment plants. This is neither milling, metallurgy, nor ore dressing, but is more properly called _Sorting_. It is one of the operations connected with mining. Milling may be either ore dressing or metallurgy.

In the operations of placering, there is a simultaneous _excavation_ of a deposit and an _extraction_ of the valuable contents. In this case, shall we call the process mining or metallurgy? If it is a gold placer, one may see the recovery of the metallic values. Here, the usage of the majority of practical mining men will uphold us in always speaking of the work as mining.

In its original significance and use, metallurgy involved the use of fire for the concentration and recovery of metals. With recent advances in chemistry, there have been numerous discoveries of wet or fireless methods for arriving at equivalent results, so that it is now perfectly proper to allow the word metallurgy to cover such processes as cyanidation, chlorination, electrolysis, and the host of new inventions that are continually appearing.

The writer has consulted a number of authorities on mining lines to ascertain just what sort of a position to give to the practice of ore dressing. Prof. Robert H. Richards, the head of the mining department in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the inventor of machines which have made him famous among mining men, says, "Ore dressing is an essential part of mining. The whole object of ore dressing is to remove gangue before shipment and so save in freight and treatment charges." Mr. A. G. Charleton, the eminent English mining engineer and author of numerous books, in discussing this question, writes, "Personally, I am of the opinion that ore dressing should be included in mining." One has but to look through the catalogues of most of the American and foreign mining schools to find that little or no line is drawn between the courses in mining and metallurgy, and almost universally the dressing of a mine's product is taken up as an inseparable part of mining. In a very few exceptions, the courses of study are so planned as to draw an imaginary line between mining and metallurgy, and in these instances, ore dressing is placed with metallurgy only for convenience in the use and arrangement of college laboratories. But, since it is a common practice for mining companies to install plants right at the mines for the purpose of diminishing the bulk of ore shipped and to thus save in freight and custom treatment charges, mine superintendents and even the common miners have become accustomed to thinking of such plants as but units of the "mining" plants. At bituminous and anthracite mines whose products contain objectionable amounts of impurities, it is a common practice to subject the output to a _Washing_ to remove the deleterious substances before shipment to the market.

In view, then, of these reasons, it is proper to decide that mining is a term broad enough to cover the operations of extracting coal and metallic ores from the ground and of preparing them for shipment or metallurgical treatment.

Coal is always coal, no matter in what thickness of deposit it is found. It may not be minable coal because in thin seams or because so intercalated with layers of slate or "bone," that the mine's mixture, or so-called "run of mine," is not salable. But with metallic ores, we run across an idea that is occupying the attention of many prominent geologists and mining men.

What is ore? This is a question to which there have been many attempted answers. There has been an evolution of ideas, with a corresponding gradation of definition. To set a uniform standard of thought upon this point, officers of the United States Geological Survey, a few years ago, proposed the following definition. It must be conceded that this definition, while embodying many splendid features, is not altogether exempt from criticism; but in the absence of anything better, we shall not be very far in error if we use it:

_Ore_ is a _natural_ aggregation of one or more _minerals_ from which useful _metal_ may be _profitably_ extracted.

There is, then, no such thing as "pay ore" or "non-pay ore," expressions still quite common among miners and prospectors of the uneducated types. Prof. James F. Kemp, probably America's best-posted writer upon the subject, in an attempt to formulate one acceptable and unchangeable meaning for the word ore, says, "In its technical sense, an ore is a metalliferous mineral or an aggregate of such minerals, more or less mixed with gangue, and capable of being won and treated at a profit. The test of _yielding the metal or metals at a profit_ seems to me, in the last analysis, the only feasible one to employ." This definition eliminates one of the weak points in the first definition, namely, that an ore must be an association of minerals: there are some common ores (as for example, magnetite) which are not associations, but single minerals.

We now reach certain fundamental concepts which must be accepted by the mining man who desires to be recognized as abreast of modern ideas. Following the publication of Kemp's definition of ore, there was much comment--as was anticipated--with the result that there has been noted a vacancy in scientific matters and it has been thought proper to permit another definition for purely scientific uses. This other definition of ore will cover the materials or aggregates of minerals from which gem stones and other valuable, but not metallic, substances are recovered.

Let us recapitulate. An _ore_ must be an aggregate or association of natural minerals, or a single mineral, from which metal may be profitably recovered. _Mines_ are excavations in the earth from which ore, coal or gems are taken. _Mining_ is the art or practice of operating mines.

Throughout the subject, we see the inseparable idea of _profit_. The work of carrying on operations in a railroad tunnel is not mining; the driving of adits through barren rocks to reach ore bodies is not mining; the sinking of shafts through worthless "wash" or rocks with a view of opening avenues for the removal of ore is not mining. Mining is carried on only when ore is being produced. The wildcat practice of erecting small, temporary plants and digging prospect holes can be condemned as not being real mining.

There is usually little question about the validity of a coal mining proposition, since "the goods show for themselves." Comparatively few cases of fraudulent ventures in coal properties are of record. The product of a coal mine is ready for market just as soon as it is loaded into railroad cars, the mining company receiving its pay, commonly, upon its own recorded weights. There is no freight to pay, no waiting for assays or analyses, and no settlements with mills or smelteries. There are not the allurements for getting rich quickly in coal mining that are so beguiling to the class of investors generally approached by the promoters of mines(?). This must not be construed as stating that nobody has ever been deceived in a coal mine proposition, for, indeed, there have been many failures; however, they have been due, chiefly, to auto-deception as to area, thickness or quality of the coal measures.

III

THE ANTIQUITY OF MINING.

Mining is believed to have been one of man's earliest occupations. In historical writings, many of which date back into antiquity, there are allusions, as well as direct statements, concerning the art and tasks of obtaining valuable metals from Mother Earth. We are told that the very ancient Egyptians made common use of metals and that they possessed knowledge of certain metallurgical and metal-working processes (as for example, the tempering of copper) which we, of today, cannot claim. Six thousand years ago Egypt became a world power through her mining of copper in the Sinai Peninsula. Iron implements found in the great Gizeh Pyramid are supposed to date back to 4,000 B.C. Copper tools have been found in the ruins of ancient Troy. In Assyria, a very good steel saw, 44 inches long, was taken from the ruins of Nimrod. Iron was utilized by the Chinese some 2,000 years B.C. Near Delhi, India, there exists an iron pillar, 22 feet long and weighing six tons, dating back to 400 B.C. It is chiefly interesting in exhibiting an ancient knowledge of welding which is the envy of our modern iron workers. If we accept the Hebrew Scriptures, we must believe that mining was carried on in the time of Tubalcain, spoken of in Genesis. The Old Testament contains numerous verses referring to the mining of metals, the land of perfect abundance being paraphrased in Deuteronomy thus: "Where the stones are of iron and out of its hills are digged mines of brass." Coal was mined and used in Greece in 1330 B.C.

It is quite probable that gold was the earliest metal to be worked. There are two good reasons for this assumption: First, gold was to be found in the native state or as nuggets, thus requiring no reduction process. Second, the ores of gold are usually less refractory than are the ores of other metals. This is especially true of the oxidized ores such as would naturally be discovered by primitive man. These facts, together with the further properties of gold, _viz._, that its color is attractive, that it resists corrosion or tarnish, and that it is easily worked into ornaments or coin merely by hammering, make it highly probable that humans early made use of this yellow material.

We read in Job 28:1, that "gold is refined;" and modern investigations tend to prove that the Ophir of Biblical reference is the southern portion of Matabeleland or the Rhodesia of present fame among mining regions. It is possible and quite probable that the great quantities of gold used in the building and furnishing of King Solomon's Temple came from the vicinity of the present city of Johannesburg. The "golden fleece" of literature has been explained as a figure of speech for the skins of sheep which were laid in troughs to catch gold upon the principle of the riffle in a modern sluice-box.

Copper was perhaps the second metal to be worked by man. As a rule, it, also, is easily smelted from its ores; and, as above mentioned, we have relics that give evidence of wonderful skill in working this metal in times of remote antiquity.

However, other metals are believed to have been mined, upon commercial scales, before the Christian era. Silver and lead were handled in large quantities from the mines of Laurium, Greece, in the sixth century B.C., and the same mines are being worked to this day, the principal values now being in the lead rather than, as formerly, in the white metal. The Phoenicians, about 500 B.C., invaded Spain for gold, copper and mercury, and Cornwall for tin and copper. The Almaden quicksilver mines of Spain have been operated, almost incessantly, since 415 B.C., and in the 16th century, A.D., the wealth of Europe's greatest family of financiers, the Fuegers, was based upon the operation of this remarkable deposit.

Del Mar, in his _History of the Precious Metals_, says, "Desire for the precious metals, rather than geographical researches or military conquest, is the principal motive which has led to the dominion of the earth by civilized races. Gold has invariably invited commerce, invasion has followed commerce, and permanent occupation has completed the process. It is the history of the past as well as of the present. Scipio went to Africa, Caesar to Gaul, Columbus to America, Cortez to Mexico, Pizarro to Peru, Clive to the conquest and Hastings to plunder Bengal."

Our own day has witnessed the subjugation of the Boer. Because of Mexico's mineral wealth, many optimistic Americans are beginning to prophesy the annexation of our sister republic. For gold, Englishmen populated Australia in 1850, about the same time (1849) that we witnessed the rush to California gold fields. Spaniards settled Central and South American countries merely to gain the precious metals. It is mining which has been responsible for the population of the arid, southwestern portion of our own domain.

In this, as in every other age of the world's development, we shall find that the mining industry lies at the heart of all commerce. It is well for the student of mining economics to fully appreciate this fact, for it will whet his interest in this great world industry.

"Truly, it has been a great seeking and finding. The story of mining may have been staled by commonplace, and the romance of it dulled, often enough, by greed; yet, in the main, it has linked the generations of earth as with a golden thread--and if not golden only, then there has been the red glint of copper or the white sheen of silver. Mining districts may come and go, but mining remains."--(Editorial, _Engineering and Mining Journal_).

IV

MINING'S PLACE IN COMMERCE.

It is said that upon two of the world's commercial industries, every other form of activity depends. These two fundamental industries are agriculture and mining. Statisticians prove the above statement and the further fact that these two dissimilar branches of civilization's business are so closely related as to be quite inter-dependent. Strides are made by one of these industries only when advance is noted in the other. While it may not be possible to explain just why this is so, it is worth our attention to consider some brief figures that show this condition of affairs.

The agitation conducted during the past few years, leading to the establishment of a Bureau of Mines in the Department of the Interior, attracted the thoughts of many students of economics who had not previously or seriously considered the industry of mining. The delivery of brilliant addresses showed that mining had been unjustly retarded. While agriculture has for years been fostered by the government and with remarkably satisfactory results, the great sister industry has been required, until recently, to struggle along without any governmental recognition in the matter of support. Yet it has forged its way in unmistakable terms of progress and there was an insistent demand, among those men particularly interested in the welfare of mining, for the protection and the assistance which would and has now come through the establishment of a governmental department. Various states have long recognized the importance of the mining industry by the establishment of departments. The Canadian and Mexican governments maintain very creditable Departments of Mines. It was but a question of time until the shortsightedness of our politicians (not our statesmen) was revealed, and the mining industry has now come under the auspices of a federal department.

Taking the world as a whole, it would be hard to conceive the sum total of annual mineral productions. The middle of the past century seems to have been a critical period in the mining industry of the earth. There was a great impetus given to mining by the greed for gold which caused the settlement of our western states and the Australian states, as already mentioned. But there gradually followed the opening up of mining in many other and hitherto unpopulated and uncivilized portions of the globe. The search for gold was successful.

Prior to 1850, the production of gold had not kept pace with the increase in population. Soon, however, it began to take leaps, in almost geometrical ratios, until, by 1900, the annual production of gold throughout the world was some 2,200 per cent. of the production for 1800 (as nearly as may be ascertained). The 1900 gold production was of a weight of about 400 tons, in round figures. During 1911, the world produced approximately $470,000,000 (about 779 tons) in new gold bullion. It is estimated that with a continuance of the remarkable progress, the next 20 years will duplicate _the amount of gold now known in the world_. _This means that the amount of gold which has been accumulating from mining during the world's ages will be doubled during a fraction of our lifetime._ This is significant of the world's progress, in gold mining, at least.

It seems coincidental that the rush for gold in 1849-50 should have been almost simultaneous with the remarkable development of our other mineral resources. All of our great discoveries of coal, oil, silver, iron, lead, copper, and zinc can be said to have followed closely upon the discovery of gold in California. It is not supposed that the discovery of iron in northern Michigan in the early eighties had any connection with the "Pike's-Peak-or-Bust" expeditions, nor that the opening and development of the vast coal beds of Pennsylvania had any bearing on the discoveries of lead and zinc in the great Mississippi Valley. But, on the other hand, there can be traced a very intimate relation between the finding of gold, silver, copper, and lead in the Rocky Mountain states and the search for gold in California: the pioneers en route to the coast were the discoverers and settlers in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana.

Figures are not available for arriving at such striking or reliable conclusions in regard to the world's production of metals other than gold, but there is no logical reason to doubt that such increases have been just as pronounced as in the case of the yellow metal. In fact, there are good grounds for assuming that the figures for silver, lead, iron, and zinc would show up even more spectacularly; while with coal, we know that we are now in the greatest period of the world's production.

The United States leads the world in the production of the base metals, such as copper, iron, manganese, lead, and zinc, taken collectively or separately. Our country stands second in the production of the precious metals, gold, platinum, and silver. We have the greatest variety of mineral products, as well as the greatest production of complex ores, or those carrying more than one valuable metal. We produce more copper than the rest of the world combined. Although we stand in second place when considering the production of gold, we still possess the Homestake mine in the Black Hills, famous as being the gold mine with the greatest tonnage in the world; and the Camp Bird mine, in the San Juan district of Colorado, famous the world over for its highest average value of gold ore. This great mine is now nearly exhausted and is about to close down after making a wonderful record.

South Africa produces the greatest amount of, and the purest, natural gold in the world. Great Britain has an insignificant production of both gold and copper, and still it is noteworthy that the English-speaking nations control the world's production of both these metals. British and American citizens own seven-eighths of the world's gold mines. England stands second in the consumption of copper, which, of course, is mainly imported.

Russia controls the world's output of platinum, with very little competition. In a similar manner, Canada has the control of nickel production. Mexico, although not commonly regarded as a gold mining country, is rapidly coming to the front and possesses the Esperanza mine, said to be one of the most profitable gold mines in the world.

To more emphatically show the importance of the mining industry, especially in our own country, the following facts are taken from 1900 census returns: Agriculture produces annually about $725 per capita; mining, $1,910; and manufacturing, which is dependent upon the others, $760. _The National Banker_ has said: "Statistics show that the combined dividends paid by the gold and silver mining companies of the United States are greater than the combined dividends paid by all of the banking institutions of the country; and the combined dividends paid by the copper mining companies of the United States exceed the combined dividends paid by all of our railroads."

There is one thought that will always comfort any person who is engaged in furthering legitimate mining: Wealth acquired from a mine is not wrested from any being but Mother Earth, and it is not, therefore, in the class with the much discussed "tainted money" that is said to be wrung from unfortunate human beings.

The following tables are presented to give the reader ideas concerning the productions of gold and silver during recent years. Among the interesting points that may be noted are the following:

The gold production of the world took a sudden drop in 1900, but it immediately resumed its upward climb. During the decade from 1900 to 1910, this production increased over 81 per cent.

There is a remarkable similarity noticeable in the gold productions of the United States during the years 1910 and 1911.

Without the notable increase in the gold output of the Transvaal in 1911, the world's total gold production for that year would have shown a decrease.

The silver production of the United States remained practically unchanged during 1911.

GOLD PRODUCTION OF THE WORLD FOR 20 YEARS

1892 $146,292,600 1902 $298,812,493
1893 158,437,551 1903 329,475,401
1894 182,509,283 1904 349,088,293
1895 198,995,741 1905 378,411,054
1896 211,242,081 1906 405,551,022
1897 237,833,984 1907 411,294,458
1898 287,327,833 1908 443,434,527
1899 311,505,947 1909 459,927,482
1900 258,829,703 1910 469,365,110
1901 260,877,429 1911 473,383,543

UNITED STATES SILVER PRODUCTION

(In Fine Ounces)

1910 1911

Alabama 300 174
Alaska 153,900 275,691
Arizona 2,655,700 1,594,428
California 1,791,600 2,727,336
Colorado 8,523,000 7,530,940
Georgia 300 225
Idaho 7,027,000 7,507,802
Illinois 2,100 4,648
Michigan 262,200 507,234
Maryland ...... 87
Missouri 32,200 56,228
Montana 12,282,900 11,116,778
Nevada 12,366,000 10,651,571
N. Mexico 779,000 1,142,335
N. Carolina 8,300 2,227
Oklahoma ...... 168,245
Oregon 43,800 69,116
Pennsylvania 700 13,262
S. Carolina ...... 14
S. Dakota 120,600 206,188
Tennessee 69,800 126,683
Texas 364,400 442,486
Utah 10,445,900 12,679,633
Virginia 200 45
Washington 204,900 142,196
Wyoming 1,300 1,009
Porto Rico ...... 51
Philippines 1,800 3,383
Miscellaneous ...... 826,102
---------- ----------
Total 57,137,900 57,796,117

UNITED STATES GOLD PRODUCTION
(In Value)

1910 1911

Alabama $32,900 $18,335
Alaska 16,271,800 16,002,976
Arizona 3,413,200 2,954,790
California 20,441,400 20,310,987
Colorado 20,526,500 19,153,860
Georgia 24,000 30,532
Idaho 1,035,000 1,169,261
Illinois ------ 5,788
Michigan ------ 20
Maryland ------ 20
Montana 3,720,400 3,169,840
Nevada 18,783,700 18,968,578
New Mexico 477,200 639,897
N. Carolina 64,500 76,693
Oklahoma ------ 30,698
Oregon 681,400 599,235
Pennsylvania 5,900 7,814
S. Carolina 37,800 13,437
S. Dakota 5,380,200 7,430,367
Tennessee 2,800 14,140
Texas 400 1,178
Utah 4,312,700 4,709,747
Virginia 900 4,300
Washington 806,000 504,537
Wyoming 4,100 18,791
Porto Rico 1,000 2,191
Philippines 154,400 130,501
Miscellaneous ------ 265,013
----------- -----------
Total $96,269,100 $96,233,528

GOLD PRODUCTION OF THE WORLD

1910 1911

Transvaal $155,730,260 $170,487,900
United States including Alaska 96,269,100 96,233,528
Australia 65,634,340 61,072,409
Russia 43,168,389 40,600,000
Mexico 24,073,100 19,500,000
Rhodesia 12,607,791 13,045,100
India 12,089,400 10,505,506
Canada 10,224,910 10,646,000
China 10,102,300 10,000,000
Japan, East Indies, etc. 10,522,437 10,600,000
West Africa 3,674,087 5,268,100
Madagascar 2,149,721 1,900,000
France 1,114,700 1,275,000
Central and South America 14,886,234 15,000,000
Other countries 7,118,841 7,250,000
------------ ------------
Total $469,365,610 $473,383,543

V

THE FINDING OF MINES.

Mines are discovered in many ways. One hears much about prospecting, and since this is a practice which is rapidly changing from a mystical to a scientific basis, a few considerations will here be in order.

Persons who have lived in mining communities are familiar with two types of prospector, the roving and the settled. Somehow, when we think of the former, there comes to mind a bearded, roughly clad man, usually accompanied by a "jack" and both packing the outfit consisting of a few tools, a pan, some blankets, a gun, and a supply of "grub." If we have in mind the other type of prospector, we imagine him as living an isolated life in a log cabin up in the hills, spending his daytime in putting in a few, short drill-holes and blasting down a ton or two of usually worthless rock in a "tunnel" or shallow shaft, confident that each succeeding shot will disclose a treasure.

Both of these types represent the utmost in optimism. These men endure many hardships and privations, they can have little converse with other humans, often they can see no provisions for the next day; in fact, they receive few of the benefits of modern civilization--if we except the food-preserving features. Still, a typical, old-style prospector keeps on with absolute faith that fortune will smile tomorrow. We must reach the conclusion that these uneducated men are led on by subtle beliefs which, to a technically-trained man, seem like the rankest folly. They are diviners, dreamers. They are disappearing now and, a generation hence, there will be but memories of them. They are giving way to successors of a different type.

The newer kind of prospector is well educated, and, perchance, he is rather youthful. His chances of success are many times those of the man he supplants. Why? Because he is taking advantage of the work that has been done by all former prospectors. He is guided by theories deduced from observations through ages, and he has the advice of the best contemporary men of experience in matters of geology as applied to mining. In other words, he is a scientific prospector.

The prospector of today has a general understanding of mineralogy and geology; he must have knowledge of mining methods, so that he may know whether a deposit, once found, can be exploited at a profit; he must be ready to account for all discovered mineral bodies, and he must be capable of applying theories to actualities.

There are so many metals and minerals sought for the markets of the world today that we see there are many fields of study and practice open to prospectors. It is not the purpose here to explain the details of scientific prospecting, for the study of this one subject would, in itself, fill a volume. The object of the above remarks is to draw to the attention of the economist the propriety (amounting almost to a necessity) of giving heed to the findings of the educated, trained searcher for mineral bodies, in preference to those of the illiterate man who has furnished themes for artists, narrators, and dramatists, because of his quaint characteristics.

Some writers have classified mineral discoveries into Search, Chance and Adventitious.

_Search_ discoveries, being the rewards of earnest seeking, it is not surprising that, under the past guide of notions and mysticism, the percentage of such discoveries has been small. Under the new order of things, with science as a guide, the percentage is growing and, in the future, this kind of discovery will undoubtedly strongly outnumber the others.

_Chance_ discoveries are those that are made purely without premeditation. They have been a dominant factor in the mineral development of the past. The discovery of _gold_ in California came about through the noticing of shiny, yellow flakes of metal in a ditch leading to a saw-mill. The great _iron_ mines of the Mesabi Range were found by the ore clinging to the roots of an overturned tree. The Wallaroo _copper_ mine, the greatest in Australia, was discovered by the green minerals brought to the surface in the excavations of a wombat. The famous Sudbury _nickel-silver_ ore bodies were disclosed when making a railroad cut on the Canadian Pacific Railroad. The Reddington _quicksilver_ mine, in California, was similarly opened in a cut for a wagon road. The mining of _silver_ at Catorce, Mexico, followed the discovery of shining silver nuggets in the camp-fire of a native, who had camped right upon a rich outcrop. The Kimberly _diamond_ mines are said to have been disclosed by the burrowings of an ichneumon, which fetched a brilliant stone to the sunlight.

_Adventitious_ finds are such as occasionally occur when, while really searching for, or actually mining, one metal, discovery is made of a different metal, or possibly the same metal is found in an entirely different kind of ore. The Comstock lode of Nevada was originally a _search_ gold discovery, the gold having been sought and found by two prospectors with ordinary gold pans. In their working to recover gold, a black mineral and a yellow sand were discarded from the pans and rockers. Curiosity of one man resulted in the identification of these two minerals as ores of silver which henceforth were held as valuable as the native gold. The Anaconda mine, at Butte, Montana, was located, and for some time worked as a silver proposition; but the values gradually changed with depth from silver to copper, until now silver is only a valuable by-product. The rich lead-silver ores of Leadville were discovered as _adventitious_ to the operation of the rich gold placers in California Gulch. A heavy, troublesome rock which accumulated in the sluices, much to the disgust of the miners, turned out to be cerussite, a fine ore of lead. This same district now produces in commercial amounts gold, silver, lead, iron, zinc, copper, and manganese. The Treadwell mine on Douglas Island, Alaska, was first worked as a placer and the values were found to extend downward into the underlying rock in a place which proved to be an immense deposit of eruptive, gold-bearing ore.

As the old-fashioned, venturesome kind of prospecting has but recently been crowded off the scene by the better, scientific kind, let us not overlook the great discoveries that were made in the past before we had applied "organized common sense" to such a field of activity. Those original prospectors were searchers, hunters. They had no guides, but they did accomplish a great deal, and their discoveries were rewards for diligence and hard labor which were, to a great extent, often misdirected.

VI

MINING CLAIMS.

The process of acquiring title to mining property may be viewed from a number of points. Such property is real estate and, as such, it may be bought and sold or otherwise transferred exactly the same as farms or city lots.

The United States has constructed an elaborate system for the disposal of its public lands to individuals, under various classifications, such as homestead, desert land, timber and stone, timber culture, coal, placer, and lode claims. Different rules apply to the filing upon, improvement and patenting (acquiring deed from the Government) of these various kinds of claims. The character of the lands in the public domain is decided by the surveyors who execute contracts from the General Land Office for subdividing or staking the country off into townships and sections, according to our American system. In the return of each surveyor's notes, he recommends the sale of the land according to his judgment as to its highest value. There has naturally been a good deal of erroneous conception upon these points, with the result that, often, land has been later shown to be entirely different in its character from the classification given to it by the contracting surveyor; for the qualifications of such a person are not always of a high grade, when it comes to geological questions. And yet, on the whole, the scheme has worked out well and much fraud against the Government has been prevented by the rigid practice.

The Government prices for some of the various classes of land have been as follows: agricultural, $1.25 per acre; coal, $10 per acre when the land was not closer to a railroad than 15 miles, and $20 per acre when it lay within this limit; placer, $2.50 per acre; lode, $5 per acre. These have been the prices demanded for the land only; the payment of these amounts, in many cases, has constituted a small fraction of the expense of securing the original deeds from the Federal Government.

Coal lands may be located very much the same as a homestead, with the exception that residence upon the ground is not required, nor are improvements essential. In cases of dispute as to priority of location, the land office will recognize those claimants who have expended the greater amounts in improvements. One citizen may locate but one claim of 160 acres.

Since April 10, 1909, the Government has been disposing of its public coal lands under a classification that takes note of many details. The kind, grade, thickness, and purity of coal; the number of workable seams; the depth; the features of local supply; transportation facilities; and the average prices at which similar private tracts are held, are among the items recognized in the classification. Probably no two tracts will be sold at the same rate. In general, the new prices are higher than the flat prices that formerly prevailed and some pieces of land are now estimated as high as $175 per acre. In every case of application to purchase coal land, hereafter, the area in question will undergo inspection by Government experts and a price will then be assessed. This law is being severely opposed as being unreasonably severe, and its amendment may be looked for.

Placer lands were formerly permitted to be taken up in any shape, the boundary stakes being placed upon the ground in such a manner as to include only the desirable area, which is usually of an alluvial nature along some valley or gulch. This practice has been forbidden, however, and a locator is now obliged to take up his land in quadrilateral tracts conforming to the subdivisions of the so-called Public Survey. By this rule, it is permissible to file upon land which is laid off into lots of not less than 1/16 of a quarter section--or ten acres--and a claim may be composed of such lots as lie contiguously and which may thus be considered as one complete workable area. The claims are often of zigzag or L shapes, but the locator is enabled, at the extra expense of subdivision surveying, to avoid filing upon, and paying for, much ground that he feels is not desirable in a placer claim. The Government does not survey public domain into smaller tracts than quarter sections of 160 acres each, so that in the taking up of placers it often involves a great deal of expense to carry the subdivisions upon the ground into sufficient detail to ascertain the location of boundary corners.

One person is entitled to as many placer claims as he desires. Each claim of a single individual may contain not to exceed 20 acres and, as said, it must be of one continuous area. Associations of citizens to the number of eight may unite in the location of 160 acres, which will then be held in equal and common interest by the several locators. The restraint placed upon greed in the matter of locations, either placer or lode, lies in certain expenses entailed in work or improvements upon the land before patent may be issued and the legal requirement of the performance of labor upon each claim amounting to $100 per annum. Also, it is required that _bona fide_ values be disclosed upon the ground. For each 20 acres located under the placer laws of the United States, not less than $500 worth of improvements must be made before the issuance of a patent.

The legal (not the technical) definition of lode land covers all grounds containing deposits of ore in its natural and original place of deposit. Under the laws, therefore, a citizen may file upon a tract of land to include a vein, lode, mass, chimney or any other form of ore body. The laws were framed at a time when miners were familiar only with the steep, tabular forms, synonymously termed veins or lodes in their nomenclature, and there were introduced features which time and progress in geological investigations have proved to be entirely unsuited to the needs of locators in many districts.

Our statutes provide that a lode claim may not exceed an area of 20,662 acres, this being the area of a parallelogram 1,500 feet long by 600 feet wide. The intention is to permit a discoverer to lay off a "lode line" along the outcrop of his vein for a distance of 1,500 feet and, at each end, to measure off, at right angles, a distance of 300 feet each way, merely as assurance that he covers the entire thickness of his lode. Since the surface contours of rugged country will crook the outcrop of a dipping plane (such as we may imagine a vein to be) the laws were constructed to permit a claim being laid off with angles or bends in the boundaries so that the outcrop might be kept closely along the middle of the claim.

The above dimensions and area are the maximum permissible under the Federal laws. The Government does not say that claims may not be less in extent, anywhere, nor does it prevent states, counties or even mining districts from making further limitations. In most of the western mining states and territories that have applied the mining law, the full maximum is allowed; but in Colorado no claim is legal if it exceeds a width of 300 feet, while in four counties of the same state claims have been restricted in width to 150 feet. By legislative enactment, since September 1, 1911, claims in all counties of Colorado are permitted to be taken up 300 feet in width. The citizens or miners of any new district, in any state or territory, may elect to limit claims to any size less than the maximum granted by the statutes and such a decision will be recognized by courts as binding upon all comers. This is an example of the rights of custom in establishing common law. In all shapes and widths of lode claims, there is now the rigid restriction that the two end-lines must be laid off exactly parallel.