The weekly Placer herald., 1853-04-23
MOnOpOly---'' -''Argus.''

speak in reference to the system of mon
opoly in mining claims in the neighb6r-
hood Of Auburn, and to condemn the
practi ,e as detrimental to the true inter
ests Of the country. II seems that min
ing friend Of ours does not altogether
coincide with US in our views in relation
to the matter, as will he seen by his arti-
Gle signed "Argus'' on the first page of
to days Herald.
Our friend has certainly drawn wrong
conclusions from our article, as well as
made some undue reflections There is
no doubt that many miners fOcked to
Auburn last fall from the Supposition that
the Bear River Canal was comp eted-
But that they were disappointed in the
mining ground is an error. Their disap
pointment was caused principally from
the monopoly that we spoke of, and which
has been the disappointment of thousands
of other miners i'm different sections of
the mines
The matter at issue is a very plain one,
and is SIMPLY this: Is this monopoly righI
We have given good reasons why it is
not-heing detrimental to the true inter
ests of the country, and wrongfully pre-
venting many from mining who would
have willingly located in our mining dis
trct and gone to work.
"Argus" would separate the miners
interest entirely from the rest of the COM
munty. But this will not do, every class
has its relative bearing upon the rest of
community, and no class can separate
their interests so far as to claim TO be in
dependent, or that their necessities are
such that they can live within themselves
free from any connection with the rest of
mankind - especially in country like
ours.
Although in opposition to the views of
"ArguS" we still advocate the holding of
but one claim, for we believe it to be
the best policy for all who are interested, ,
and besides it is a matter very easily reg
ulated. If mining ground is generally
poor, how easy it is for miners to call a
convention and make the claims of such
size that i, will be worth mans while
to locate and work. But let it he dis
tinct understood that no man holds but
one claim at time, and we venture the
prediction it will be better for all. In
This we are not to be understood as con-
demning combination of labor. Seven
men may own seven ciaims-one apiece -
and join together and work them all out
Yet at the same time we would not have
these seven men buy seven claims here
and seven claims there and other claims
somewhere else, letting those claims lie IA
whole season untouched whIe miners
around are in want of ground to work.
It Is not right hence we condemn it, Nei-
fher do we advocate any lawless 'Jump-
ing" Of claims. Such, for instance, as a
case we heard of the other day at Gold
Hill, where company of six owned two
claims and half IN one place and two
a half in another-rnaking five claims IN
all-and yet party went in and Jumped
half of the claims. We hcievr that every
thing should be done in lega manner;
hence il was, that we advised every new
conner in our former article to 'gO to
work upon amy unworked ground that he
conld find unocrupied; and that has been
so for ten days" in the Auburn district,
which "Argu~" failed to quote so as to
give our full intent and meaning. and
which he characteriSes us ''revolution
ary;" bur we know the laws of Auburn
district recognises such an act under such
circumstances as perfectly legal and right,
and any miner performing such an act
would only br doing what he wOu d have
81 perfect right to do under the laws of the
district, because all right to the unoccu-
pied claims woGIl have heen forfeited by
the original holder by noncompliance
with the laws.