The weekly Placer herald., 1853-10-29
Political Essay.
Nh. Nv.


bounds.
The pretensions set up by certain poll
ticians on the part of the State to the pro-
prietorship of the mines Of gold and sill
yer within her bounds, seems rather too
absurd to entitle it to our serious cOnsid-
Grafton, nor would give it any time and
attention rs the subject of an essay, were
it not that it has received the sanction of
the highest judicial tribunal Of the State,
and we may expect to be called on soon to
pass judgment in some shape or other in
the premises.
In the case of Hicks ct taI vs.. Bell ct al,
decided at the July Term Of the Supreme
Court of this State, it is stated in the
opinion Of the Court that, Sin reference
to the ownership Of the public lands, the
United States only occupies the position
of any private proprietor, with the excep-
ton of an express exemption from State
taxation. The mines of gold and silver
in the public lands are rs much the prop
er.y of this State by virtue Of her sove-
reignty as are similar mines in the hands
Of private citizens;" and from this prop
osition they infer that California has the
proprietary Interest in the mines Of pre-
ciOus metals that form our great staple Of
wealth
The premises are probably correct,-
it is the inference that dispute.
Several Of the old States are referred
to in that decision as having laid claim to
those mines, by right of their sovereignty,
and as new States are admitted into the
Union on an equal footing with the orig
inal thirteen this fact is held up as an in
dsputable argument in favor of the con-
clusion arrived at.
Whatever reasons may have been given
for this claim, by the Legislative authori-
ties of those States, ! apprehend the true
foundation lies in the declared fact. that
ny the revolution commenced in l776, the
people of the several States, in their right
Of sovereignty care deemed to possess
the original and ultimate property in and
10 all lands within the jurisdiction of each
of those States"
The right to all mines, is right ap-
pended to the owner of the soil. The
English common law made the mines Of
gold and silver reservation to the crown
in all it's grants; and any State owning
lands, or the United States in comforting
title, may do the same, and inasmuch as
the mantle of British authority fell upon
those States respectively, in regard to the
landed interest within their borders, their
exercise of that privilege was just and
proper. 1t is known that valuable mines
of silver, and it is said also of gold, are
located within the borders of Texas, but
the United Suites has never by any act at
tempted to interfere with the working or
disposal Of them-and why? simply, be-
cause that State on her admission into the
Union retained a her public lands.
1t was a feature Of the common law of
England that all title to lands was either
directly or indirectly derived from the
crown, hence the people submitted to this
reservation of the precious metals, in their
tenures, as being apparently just.
But this rule does not obtain in these
United States, for in some of the States
the State gives the patent, in others the
United States, and in Ohio Connecticut,
Virginia and United States have respect
lively conferred title. The General Gov
ernment by right of ownership, has al
ways exercised the right of exemption
from location and snle, saline springs and
mineral lands of every description, and
this right has been sustained by the courts
whenever brought into question before
them.
But it will be conceded that when an
absolute fee simple title is conferred by
either state or The United States that all
right to the minerals passes with it
Blackstone tells US that "if man grant
all his lands he grants thereby all his
mines of metal and other Fossils" and
Mr.. Justice Clayton, of Georgia, in the
case of the State of Georgia vs.. Cenotoo,
in lS4S, held that "the right and title to
land included a right in and to the miner
ais therein, unless they were separated
from the lands, by positive grant or excep-
ton; and that if the State made a grant
of lands to an individual, without any
exception of mines and minerals, the
mines and minerals would pass to the
grantee as part and parcel of the land"
This, believe to he the principle both in
England and the United States, and thus
we see that the right to mines of gold and
silver is not in fact franchise necessarily
attached to sovereignty, but appertains to
the ownership of the soil, and passes
with it.
1t is therefore Of little use to refer to the
action of New York, Pennsylvania, Geor-
gia or the Carolinas in this question, he
cause they derive their title to lands diff
ferently from us. If the people Of this
State owned the lands within the same,
then the parallel would exist.
The right of eminent domain, which at
taches to all States, is not such a one as