The weekly Placer herald., 1853-10-15
For the Weekly Plncer Herald.
Political Essay,
M III.


No. III.
TIE right Of the State to tie Lossds n
the Bay Of Ssn Francisco.
Once upon a time, certain fortified
place was reduced to the necessity Of sur
rendering, aud ia the articles of capitula- :
ton, signed and solemnly agreed to by
both barties, the captors specifically pro-
missed that if the garrison would surrender
enc blood should be spilled" The be-
sieger. marched ia, took possession Of the
arms, &C., end buried the prisoners siise-,
no blood was spilled.
This &C, Of perhdy has been held up
70 the students gaze, by one of the most
distinguished authors upon the elementary
principles Of law, in illustration of the
manner in which contract may be COM
piled with IN strict accordance with the
letter, and yet in every sense violated
when the spirit Of the agreement is con-
sidered.
What then shall we say Of a great
State,-claim ng to he and when her re-
source. are considered. of right is-the
"bright particular star" and golden gem,
In the dndem Of our glorious Union,
STOPPING not only to violate that contract
by agreeing to which, she gained her
position, in that Union where only those
who nccede to the lofty code Of reason
and honor are worthy of a place, hut in
violation Of the direct letter, with rude
hand srizing AS the spoiler may, the pro-
perty Of another.
But ( am answered, that this claim Of
the State is not an evasion of Sec. Sd of
the Act admitting California into the
Union. il il plain principle Of law, and
40 decided in the United States Courts.
The only case bearing the sernblance of
analogy, and which is referred to by the
highest authority in the State, in support
ot the State title, is the case Of Pol ards,
Lessees, VS. Hagan ct al.
This case was decided in January, ls45,
f3vs wears before this act referred to WAS
passed, by Congress, and although con
ditons some " hat similar were made with
most Of new States on their admission,
vet in no one instance is the wording Of
the conditions, like that contained in this
resolution, with regard to the public
domain.
We were "to pass no law and do no
act, whereby the title Of the United States
to, and right to dispose Of the same, shall
he impaired or Questioned"
A, the trial of that cause the court said,
il was the first time the issue had turned
upon the question Of precedence between
State and United States sovereignty, in
n question Of title 10 soil.
5ndre Catron, who upon that occasion
delivered dissenting opinion (as ! con
reive> replete with sound common-sense
arguments, said that the position taken
Nv the respondents, Hogan ct al, was not
new one among politicians, but that II
had never heen before that case, act up in
that court. II is said that the same court,
in January, 1880, in an opinion delivered
nv G. j. fancy, confirmed the same title
upon the same principles.
Here then were only two decisions
prior 10 the set Of admission, and ia it NOT
reasonable 10 suppose, tha; the framers
Of that act, had ths, very question in their
eve when they were pennlng the Sd sec
tion, and did pen il with a view to settle
definitely this mooted point. Judge Cat
ron tells ua in the dissenting opinion
alluded TO that the same tit'e had been
four times previous to that before them,
and in each case Polard's title sustained,
and that a, that very time parties were in
possession under decisions Of that Court
He further said that Gin Pollnrd's
Lessees vs. Files, reported in Cd Howard
CO, the question whether Congress had
power to sell the lands now in contro-
versy, was treated MS settled. As the
Judgment was exclusively founded upon
the Ac, Of 1886, (,he plaintiff having nd
duced no other title it was Impossible to
reverse the judgment Of the Supreme
Court Of Alabama on any other assump-
tion, than that the Act Of Congress con-
ferred valid title"
81 delivered that opinion, and 1t Is due
to myself 10 say, that it was the urani-
nous Judgment Of the members OF the
Court then present" Pollard VS. Kihbe
another case involving similar tit'e, was
sustained, on the same principle. But the
court in deciding Pollard va Hogan, seem
to have hecn as much governed by motives
Of policy, as n regard to the rules Of 'aw,
for they remark, "to give ~ the United
States the right 10 transfer 10 citizen the
title to the shores and the soils under the
navieahle waters, would he placing in
their hands \ weapon which might he
welded greatly to the injury Of State
sovereignty, and deprive the States Of the
power to exercise numerous and i'm
Dortant class Of police powers But in