Conjecture
An assumption , also an assumption , is an application from a mother to a mining authority for approval of a permit for mining . After the recent German, Prussian, Saxon and Austrian mountain laws in accordance with governmental requirements presumption established a legal right to award the mining property. This legal claim did not apply to the issuing authority, but to third parties. Still stands in geology presumption for locating the rocks at depth, the Felsmutung while for the historical concept of "seeking and gas is found" prospecting is used.
Basics
The term muten is derived from the Old and Middle High German muoten , which means to desire, demand, want to have something - namely mine ownership for the purpose of extracting mineral resources. It is therefore wrong if some older mining law teachers and some old mining regulations hire and write tenants . The speculation had to be submitted to the mountain master . If the mother could not find the mountain master, it was also possible to put the document on the table in the presence of a witness in the mountain master's house. Hence the expression comes the insert presumption . The submitted coupons were strung on a string until the final decision was reached. If a mother was not able to repair existing defects within a period of time, he had to ask the miner for an extension of the deadline so that his right to speculate would not expire. The mountain master only then preferred other requests for advice. This process is then referred to as the presumption on the cord holding or the erlängen presumption or extend presumption .
Regulations in the older mountain regulations
In the older mining regulations, the expectation was not presented as a mandatory legal process to acquire mine property. In the old mountain regulations, the expectation was nothing more than a simple request for an award. In the Ferdinandeische Bergordnung the term Muten is not mentioned at any point, but here it is only about receiving ( procedure ) and giving the speech. In the Maximilian Bergordnung there is the concept mute while, but in this mountainous order of the term than beg or desire classified. So here the courage is only an application for the award. In the Bohemian Mountain Regulations, courage was addressed in much more detail, but here, too, it was not classified as a special independent act, but also as begging or desire.
Mutable objects
According to mining law, various objects belonging to mining could be muted. Initially, these were newly discovered deposits or fossils. It was irrelevant whether these minerals were discovered accidentally as an outcrop of the deposit or were exposed by prospecting . In addition, tunnels that were used to find the minerals or were operated as auxiliary structures could be muted. In addition, encouragement could be given for all daytime facilities that were part of the mine operation, in particular mining forges and stamp mills. This included all the dumps required for the pounding and washing works , all the water required to operate the machines, as well as the site for the watercourses and moats. The terrain required to set up ironworks as well as old cinder piles and broken furnaces from former ironworks, in which metal remains were still present, could also be mooted. But not only new deposits or tunnels, but also for old mine workings that had already fallen back into the mountain free , a new courage could be put in place. This applied not only to the mine workings, but also to all the necessary daytime facilities, heaps and pings that had fallen into the mountainous area. If a guess was not placed on a single mineral in a deposit, but on all minerals occurring in the deposit, this guess was called the main or general guess.
requirement
The prerequisite for a successful mutation was the proof that the minerals reserved in the deposit had been discovered. In the old mining law of the mining areas on the right bank of the Rhine , the term discovery was used for this. The deposit had to be accessible for possession at the time of speculation. The point of discovery could not only be from the files, but had to be evident from the open pit . However, it was not enough that the deposit had once been exposed; it had to be accessible at present. For this proof it was necessary to be able to touch the find with the hand or the drill pipe. This evidence was often provided by the mining authorities inspecting the place on the earth's surface where the planned mining was to take place. It was required under German mining law for the validity of the presumption, is that the existing at the specified point Fund for mineral mining extraction suitable. However, it was not necessary to check the feasibility of a projected deposit. This proof of the profitability of a deposit was only required under the older mining rights. Unsuccessful speculation is called blind . "Blind guess is when neither the passage nor the place of the mountain has been named in a muth-zeddel, which the miner may not accept".
formalities
According to the General Mining Law for the Prussian States, the request had to be submitted to the Oberbergamt. According to the law, however, the Oberbergamt was authorized to delegate this to the district officials for certain areas . This commission had to be made public in the government gazette and in the state gazette.
As a rule, the speculation had to be submitted in writing in duplicate. However, it was also possible to put the suspicion on record with the authority authorized to accept it, i.e. to submit it orally. This possibility already existed in older times, i.e. before the new mining laws came into force. The mother received a copy of the protocol. The speculation could either be lodged with the mountain master himself or with a mountain jury commissioned by him . It was also possible to leave it on the table in the miner's apartment, but this required witnesses. The suspicion could also be submitted by telegram, this was determined by the 4th Senate of the High Tribunal in a decision of May 2, 1861. Due to the telegraphic courage, the mother gained a time advantage of more than a day, especially in larger mountain areas.
After the suspicion was put in, the police officer had to check whether older claims had already been made for the coveted field. In the case of several inserted speculations on the same field, the age of the speculations was decisive according to the German and Austrian mining laws. The only exception was the speculation of a privileged finder. The property owners who discovered a deposit on their own land without any special prospecting or the mine owners who discovered a minable mineral in their own mine were considered privileged finders . If a presumption was based on a find that was in a field that had already been lent out or had already been claimed by an older presumption, this presumption was invalid. Such a process was called “presenting a presumption of right and wrong”. After the suspicion had been checked and declared to be legal, it was entered in the courage, lending and deadline book.
Until the award, the mother could do without parts or all of the courage. He could also desire another field. He could do this as often as he wanted until the award ceremony. If he did not make such efforts, the presumption became binding within a statutory period. Subsequently, a found Belehnung instead of the mine, the underground expansion of the mine by a perforated brick was determined at the surface. After the mine ownership was lent, the field could only be changed with the consent of the mining authorities. The field of each assumption was entered by the mining authority into the assumption overview map according to the situation map submitted by the mother .
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c d e Heinrich Veith: German mountain dictionary with documents. Published by Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn, Breslau 1871.
- ↑ a b c d e f Adolf Arndt, Kuno Frankenstein (ed.): Handbook and textbook of political science in separate volumes. First Department of Economics XI . Volume: Mining and Mining Policy. Published by CL Hirschfeld, Leipzig 1894.
- ↑ Gerhard Köbler: Etymological legal dictionary. Verlag Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1995, ISBN 3-8252-1888-0 , p. 276 f.
- ↑ Cf. Christian Friedrich Koch: General mining law for the Prussian states. Verlag Franz Wahlen, Berlin 1870, p. 62, footnote 68.
- ^ Johann Christoph Stößel (Ed.): Mining dictionary. Chemnitz 1778.
- ↑ a b Otto Freiherr von Hingenau : Handbuch der Bergrechtskunde. Published by Friedrich Manz, Vienna 1855.
- ↑ Christian Heinrich Gottlieb Hake: Commentary on mining law with constant consideration of the most noble mining regulations, combined with the technology necessary for lawyers. Kommerzienrath JE von Seidel Kunst- und Buchhandlung, Sulzbach im Regenkkreis Beierns 1823.
- ↑ Carl von Scheuchenstuel : IDIOTICON the Austrian mining and metallurgy language. kk court bookseller Wilhelm Braumüller, Vienna 1856.
- ↑ a b c d R. Klostermann: The General Mining Act for the Prussian States of June 24, 1865, with introduction and commentary. Published by J. Guttentag, Berlin 1866.
- ↑ a b Kurt Pfläging: Stein's journey through coal mining on the Ruhr. 1st edition. Geiger Verlag, Horb am Neckar 1999, ISBN 3-89570-529-2 .
- ^ Hermann Brassert: Mountain orders of the Prussian lands. FC Eisen's Königliche Hof-Buch- und Kunsthandlung, Cologne 1858.
- ^ General mining law for the Prussian states of October 1, 1865. Verlag von RL Friderichs, Elberfeld 1865.
- ↑ Carl Johann Bernhard Karsten, H. von Dechen: Outline of the German mining law doctrine with consideration of the French mining legislation. Hande- and Spener'sche Buchhandlung, Berlin 1828.
- ^ A b Wilfried Ließmann: Historical mining in the Harz. 3. Edition. Springer Verlag, Berlin / Heidelberg 2010, ISBN 978-3-540-31327-4 .
