The Nevada journal., 1853-02-25
9lsD1.Dn DOMgunl>
A. A. SARGENT EDITOR.
FRIDAY MORNING. FEBRUARY 20.
Protection of Building Lots.

1
The contempt case which we give in
another part of this paper as occurring
at Grass Valley suggests some important
considerations. In order to permanent
settlement and growth of towns in the
mining districts Of the State, there is an
absolute necessity for further legislation
calculated to secure the occupants of
building lots, and the owners of improve
ments on them, in the quiet possession
of their property. In consequence of
the entire absense Of any legislation on
this subject, doubt and distrust exists
in mining communities with reference
to how permanent may be the rights of
property holders, and the evils springing
from this have been manifold. Valua
BILE improvements are rarely commenced.
and collisions are frequent between
holders OF building lots and mining
claims. A much less permanent and
valuable class of structures have been
erected in consequence, as the owners
do not feel safe against the encroach-
men's and aggressions of those claiming
a better right to the land. Families
have far less comfortable homes me-
chanics and business men have less i'm
proved accommodations, because the law
recognizes no tenure In the soil to pro-
tect them.
We understand this matter is now be-
ing urged upon the attention of the Le-
gislature by citizens from this county =
1t is one that should receive attention
on the part of that body, and comes d.
rectly within its province. Below we
give some remarks on this subject from
the Placer Herald
"The Legislature of our State has
passed no act which has direct refer
ence to the building up of towns in the
mines of California, and directly extentl-
ing to such settlers that protection
which they are entitled to- against the
encroaehment' of "Tom, Dick and Har-
ry,n and in view of the taxes which ev-
cry householder is necessarily compelled
to contribute toward the support of the
government. Is it rieht that no such
law should exist! We think such a
law should and could be passed by our
Legislature, if Congress neglects t2 see
to it, 1t may, however, be urged that
the Legislature has no right to Interfere
with the lands belonging to the Federal
Government. We grant that it has no
right to give a fee simple title, as that
alone is vested in the Federal Govern
ment-but we contend that our Lepis-
lature has the power to protect its own
citizens and tax payers in their property
and personal security. 1t is true, the
English Common Law, (Which is adopt
ed in our State, defines the rights of
property as well as individual wrongs
but how many of those who are pursuing
the occupation of mining, know any
thing at all of the Common Law? We
will venture to say, not one in twenty
The people Of California are fast peo-
pie, and don't consume much time in
examinations of either Congressional or
Common Laws, for the simple reason that
either OF which are seldom seen in the
mines. The statutes of our State are
looked upon by nine-tenths of our popu
lation, as the only governing law, es-
pecially in obscure localities in the
mines.
Will some of our Representatives see
to this matter? 1t is of vital Importance
to every settler upon town lot, that
when he builds, his house may not be
torn down the next day"