Weekly national intelligencer., 1850-10-12

ject might acquire the right possession or property from th
sovereign, showed the ownership be in the sovereign
Not lees unsound, In my opinion, the conclusion Il
which Mr. Soue advances and which is the object and pon
of his Argument viz that the United tuies received hs
mines and mining lands Of California in no other or bssts
condition than be supposes Spain and Mexico held them
before they have other right Ia them than 10 levy
duty ON their PRODUCTS and hold this nigh. only by virtue
Of soucregnty; hence If they part with their sovereignty, by
admitting California without express stipulation agreed
by California beforehand, they lose all right in the mines
tchasoerer.
The argument comes simply to this that there is no title
in these mines existing any where that Spain, and
quenty Mexco) after the license given by Philip the Second
had rights them, except OF taxation, By cue Of
regnty that this precaous and slippery tenure all that
they transferred the United States and hence if they part
with their sovereignty the country without express
stipulation for the reservation of much Of it, the mines
far as Uncle Sam is concerned, gone Hence
California not be admitted till the United States have
proposed and this State consented that the Of right
which Philip IT. happened to out Of his before penay
power may continue in the Federal Government which has
inherited it.
To an unsophisicaed eye, the matter does not seem
desperate Undoubtedly according to the mining laws which
formerly existed in this country, any man might 60 the
domain and having discovered mine, acquire property in
specified small portion Of continue long be work
ed and improved it. But when the land, which those
ars become the property Of the United States sppre-
hend the instantly different apprehend it was
then part Of that property to which the constitutional pro-
vision applies and which Congress alone could dispose Of
provide for the disposal regulation Of 1t is mooted
question whether the constitution in its political character
extended the Territories except by special enactment but
suppose there be doubt that this economic provision
reaches to all property of the Government whether within
without the State organizations and much the United
States lands here vessel Of in port of China
elsewhere apprehend then, that in order the
rights whsever they may be of the United States in the
mines from apsing there 10 necessity for posponDg the
admission Of California and exposing this people the dam
gers Of anarchy
But again. the argument Of Mr.. .Soule utterly fails
If the United States have property in the mines of
California, he labors to show they have not, then
treaty stipulation give them right-no compact
with this State secure them in ghto td those nines
for that just and equitable constitution under which were
all Bred and for extension to of whose protecting gs
are all so anIiousy seeking and patiently waiting provides
that "dues, imposts, and eXcises shall be inform through
out the United States If the United States have not the
ownership of the mines situated the public domain here
then s folly to talk about securing, by compact with
the State, right to collect from them. The State
could make such compact and If she could did the
paramount law would override it.
Another branch Of Mr. Soules argument against the adj
mission of our State to this ppor that Congress should
admit the State without previous express contract reserng
the rights Of the United Sates sl the public lands hat Isl
United States lands( within the State would instantly be lost
the United Staes and become the property Of this State
Now, tins to be confoundDg of the rights of
property with the eminent doais The change Of sove-
regny works change in the eminent domain but in
the rights Of property otherwise the admission Of the State
or the establishment Of it's sovereignty would work forfeit
ure of the property Of individuals well that Of the Unon
If the United States acquired any property the Territories
ceded to them by Mexico then hold that demonsrabe
that there only three ways by which that properly by
any possibility be dvested first by law Of Congress provd
ing for its disposal according the Of the constitutions
second, by treaty with foreign Power in virtue Of the potent
character which the constuon mpartyto treaties third by
act Of war, revolution virtue othe right of conquest
rs acknowledged by the laws Of nations The first is the
'ny constitutional mode; the others Incidents Of all pro-
orietary rights in power wch has authority to make ea
les and against which be levied hold that the
admission Of this State will not bring into operation either Of
hose three means but hat-whe the sovereignty Of this
country will depart (has departed , from the United States
md vest in the State the rights Of property Of the United
states will remain intact. Wei.
SAN FRAScIsCoy AUGUsT q, 1850.
"The argument Of the Spanish law to the of this
he king perhapOshed the owxsp Of the mnes by virtue
his sovereignty but the proportions which he exacted of
heir products right of taxation by virtue Of
overeignty, but By un'tne of his oecaershp.