December 13, 1918. THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 1243 MINING LAW AND ECONOMICS.—II. MINERALS, MINES AND QUARRIES. By David Bowen, Capt. R.E, F.S.S., F.S.I., M.Inst.C.E., etc. Minerals. What is a mineral? is a question which has involved many very important cases of litigation in respect of lights of property. The mineralogist generally defines a mineral as “ a substance possessing a definite chemical composition, with, in most cases, distinctive crystalline structure.” The mining engineer, on the other hand, regards the question more from the commercial point of view. But the definitions given in some mining text books follow that of the mineralogist rather closely. Thus, Tonge, in his Principles and Practice of Coal Mining, defines a mineral as “ any constituent of the earth’s crust having a definite chemical composition which does not vary from part to part of its mass.” Hughes, in his Text-Book of Coal Mining, defines coal as “ a solid strati- fied substance, capable of undergoing combustion in contact with oxygen not containing sufficient earthy impurities to prevent its being applied as a source of heat . . .” J. F. Kemp,* treats the question from quite another standpoint in connection with metalliferous minerals. He defines an ore as “ a metalliferous mineral or aggre- gate of metalliferous minerals mingled with a greater or less amount of barren materials called the gangue, and yet rich enough to be mined at a profit. When not proved to be sufficiently rich to be remunerative, the aggregate is called mineral. The mineral of to-day may be changed, by the advent of a railway or the rise in price of metal, into the ore of to-morrow.” Th:s is a somewhat loose interpretation. It would have been equally true to say that a reduction in working costs or an improvement in methods of recovery of the valuable metal would have the immediate effect of converting a “ mineral ” into an “ ore.” Kemp further states that, in order that the several metals may constitute ores, their percentages (of the substances mined) must be the following (with reservations as to the state of the ore and conditions at the mine):— Aluminium ... Copper .... Gold ...... Iron....... Lead ...... Manganese ... 30 2—10 0*003—*00016 35-65 2—25 40—50 Nickel ......... Platinum..... 2-5 0-00005 0 03—0T6 1-5—3 5—25 Silver.......... Tin.......... Zinc.......... This view-point, as to whether a substance is profit- able or not to work, is that generally taken by mining engineers. The whole question was reviewed by Prof. J. W. Gregory in the Transactions Institution Mining Engi- neers, vol. 37, part I., pp. 32, et seq. He advanced the definition of a commercial mineral, as distinguished from a mineral, as “ any constituent in the earth’s crust which has a value of its own, apart from its value as a soil, or as a support.” In explanation of this definition, Prof. Gregory added that a mineral in the commercial sense is any material which is obtained from the crust of the earth which, if of organic origin, has been fossilised or essentially altered, and is used as a source of metals, fuels, or other materials of economic value. Legal definitions of the term “mineral ” are contained in the judgments of numerous leading cases. These definitions are not wholly consistent, although the opinions of experts as witnesses were obtained in some of the cases, it should, however, be noted that the conflict of opinions in these cases arises partly from the nature of the case—the nature of the transactions under which the litigation arose. A few of the principal leading cases are now cited. In the - case of Hext v. Gill (1872), Lord Justice Mellish defined minerals as “all such bodies of mineral substances lying together in seams, beds or strata, as are commonly worked for profit, and have a value independent of the surface of the land” ; and, further, “ a reservation of minerals includes every substance which can be got from underneath the surface of the earth for the purpose of profit, unless there is something in the context or in the nature of the transaction to induce the Court to give it a more limited meaning.” In the same case, Lord Justice James agreed, but sus duct, cross, or passage, whether in search of metals, or to destroy fortifications:—Mines are underground workings. — (Lord Justice Turner). The word “ quarry ” is stated to be derived from the French word quarri'ere. In the Latin of the Lower Ages quadratorius was a stone cutter, qui marmora quadrat, and hence quarriere, the place where he quadrates or cuts the stone in squares, the place where the stone is cut in squares, generally a stone pit—clearly, therefore, referring to a place upon or above, and not under, the ground.—(Lord Justice Turner in Bell v. Wilson, supra). Again, Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, in the case of Jersey v. Neath Union (1889) defined a quarry as “a thing which is worked by taking away the surface and not by sinking a shaft.” There is no doubt that originally—and this is the case still in certain districts—the word “mine” was applied to the mineral itself or the seam or vein of mineral. Thus, in South Wales the Welsh term mwyn (mine) is applied to the ironstone found in coal seams From the legal decisions just cited, it is setn that, in the United Kingdom, it is the nature of the excavation and not the nature of the mineral, which decides whether the workings are a mine or not. Thus, again, in Sim v. Evans (1875), it was held that a s'ate quarry worked by underground working is a mine within the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872. “ That which is worked by mines is by a process of working underground without disturbing the surface .... Where you are working sub dio after having removed the surface so as not to leave any roof, that is quarrying.” (Vice-Chancellor Kindersley in Darvill v. Roper (1855).) On the other hand, under the Income Tax Act 1842, in the case of Jones v. Cwmorthen Slate Company (1879), it was held that slate works are assessable as quarries and not as mines, although the slate be obtained by underground working. “ The distinction in the Act is between the classes of things raised, and not between the mode of raising them.”—(Lord Justice Cotton). In Belgium, France and Italy, the workings for mineral are classified not according to the mode of working them, but according to the mineral wrought. The French Law of 1810 distir guishes between mines, minieres, and carrieres. Mines include deposits of gold, silver, lead, copper, sulphur, coal, and beds or veins of iron ore. Minieres include bog iron ore, pyritous earths fit for working, sulphate of iron, aluminous earths and peat. Carrieres (quarrieres), or quarries, comprise workings for stone, clay, sand, etc., whether above or below ground. By the statute of 1866, minieres were assimilated to carrieres, and the law became like that of Italy (1859), which distinguished between mines (miniere) and quarries (cave)—the former comprising deposits containing metallic ores (except metal-bearing sand or earth), sulphur, bitumen, coal or lignite, and the latter comprising pits from which sand and gravel are obtained. What is merely an underground stone quarry in France would be a mine in England, whilst open workings for iron ore in England would be a mine in France or Italy. _______ References.—Cockburn’s “ Law of Coal; ” MacSwinney’s “ Mines, Quarries and Minerals ; ” Bainbridge’s “ Mines and Minerals; ” “ Report of Royal Commission on Mining Royalties.” Note.—The following references relate to Article No. 1, which appeared in our issue of December 6, 1918:—Palgrave’s “Diet, of Pol. Economy” (by kind permission of Messrs. Macmillan and Company); “ Report of Royal Commission on Mining Royalties; ” “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” IIth Ed. _________________________ The Cranes Order, dated December 20, 1916, has been revoked. INCREASING THE OUTPUT OF COAL.* By John Gibson. It is always easy to give a counsel of perfection. To increase the output of coal, the obvious way is to remove control and return from military service all colliery workmen. Even that, however, does not quite solve the problem, because all stores and materials, including a plentiful supply of suitable timber, would require to be had for the asking. To increase the out- put, then, by the counsel of perfection requires pre- war conditions, and is in the meantime impracticable. What is meant by increasing the output? The domestic consumer will believe that that has been attained when coal, gas, and electricity cease to be rationed. The industrial consumer will be satisfied when his orders are promptly fulfilled, and the ship- ping agent when each hold and bunker are stowed without delay. It must not be forgotten that when this state of business has been attained prices will begin to fall; so colliery managers and coal owners foresee that while increase of aggregate output is the question of the moment, the great question of the not far distant future is the increase of output per man. When prices fall, as they inevitably must, the battle in the world’s markets will be resumed, and the vic- tory will go (other conditions apart) to the combatant whose output per man is highest. How long the present abnormal conditions will last no man would attempt to forecast at present. It will depend, probably, on certain factors the influence of which will emerge in due course. Among these, one might reasonably presume, will be the financial con- dition of combatant and neutral nations, the length of the period of unrest in Central and Eastern Europe, and the condition of the French and Belgian mines. The question, then, may be considered as divided into two parts : (1) the increase of the aggregate output at once, and (2) increase of output per man at a later period. Immediate Increase of Aggregate Output. It may be worth shortly considering why, if control has the effect of reducing output, was it instituted and why does it remain? The immediate cause of coal control was the labour unrest in South Wales in 1916. The workmen could not be convinced that they were getting their fair share of the profits. It was evident that there could be no limit to the vicious circle of miners asking and getting increased wages, coal owners asking and getting increased prices to recoup themselves, followed by a new demand from the miners, and so on. The country could not do without coal at a reasonable price, so to protect its interests the Government instituted control, the objects of which were control of market prices, and the regulation of workmen’s wages and coal owners’ profits. Another important object in view was the economy in railway transit which might be effected by stopping unnecessary traffic. This was effected by dividing the country into areas or districts, in order that the Controller could ensure that coal won in any one of these districts would be sold to a consumer within or near the area. During a time of great national stress such as now exists, control is a necessity, but every attempt to regulate prices and wages carries with it grave dis- advantages. The author has criticised the policy of the Controller in this paper, but it should be said, in fairness to Sir Guy Calthrop, that the inherent diffi- culties of his task are very great. History does not show an example of any attempt made before the present war to fix the price and enforce the sale of necessities, if we except the case of France about 1790, which was a complete and total failure. The chief incentive to strenuous effort in produc- tion of output is money. Coal owners do not invest large sums of money in the risky business of mining for philanthropic reasons. No mine manager goes through his day of distraction and worry just for the fun of the thing. No miner rises early and goes out to a hard shift because he is fond of it. No doubt all three get engrossed in the work, and, with all its worries and all its difficulties, families for generations follow the industrial footsteps of their fathers. During the course of the -war we have become accus- tomed to people drawing comparisons between the heroic self-sacrificing soldiers at the Front on the one hand, and the grasping coal owner and greedy miner at home on the other. This comparison is most unjust, and shows a total lack of knowledge of human nature. From close personal acquaintance with many hundreds of miners who have gone to the firing line, the author is perfectly sure that, were he in command of them he could confidently ask for volunteers for the most desperate adventure, but revolt would follow if he insisted on an unfair distribution of rations. So with the men at home. For them there is no tragic call for self-sacrifice, and to get the best sus- tained daily effort every regulation should be so framed and administered that no legitimate cause should exist for the feelings of unfairness and in- justice that undoubtedly exist in all branches of the mining industry. Perhaps the greatest error of the Controller is one which does more credit to his heart than his head. He has recently emphasised that the bonus was given to the miners to meet the increased cost of living, but philanthropy and business must be kept in separate cerebral compartments. It is possible to give a bonus for meeting the increased cost of living which will have the effect, among other things, of reducing the output, but it is also possible to devise a bonus which will certainly increase output and have, incidentally, the effect of largely increasing the miners’ earnings. It is unnecessary here to go into the history of the bonus. After being fixed at Is. 6d. per day, at which it stood for a period and was paid by the coal owner, who in return was permitted to increase the selling price by 2s. 6d. per ton, it was raised to 3s. per day * Paper read before the Scottish Mine Managers’ Asso- ciation at Glasgow on December 7, 1918.