San Andreas independent., 1857-02-14
California Legislature.
SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, Feb. 4th, 1857.

protect the owners of growing crops and
other property in the mining region, and
supplementary to the act of April 25th,
1855, was taken up.
Mr.. Vaudeville moved to make it the
special order for tomorrow at II ~ Lost
by 9 ayes to 10 noes
Mr.. Shaw supposed the bill might be a
very proper one, but it required miners to
give bonds before entering into an enclo-
sure for the purpose of mining.
Mr.. Bell opposed it, for the reason that
it involved great interests, and gave to ag-
riculturlsts, horticulturists or others the
first right, whereas the laws heretofore,
both Of Congress and the State, gave the
first right to miners.
Mr.. Chase thought the law, as amended,
would be perfectly satisfactory to the dele
gates from the mountains. The only change
1t proposes to make in the law, as it now
stands, is to insert the word necessary"
before " improvements" and requiring the
miners to give bonds of indelnnilication be-
fore destroying or injuring growing crops,
trees, &c. He had heard no objection
made to the old law, but doubted not that
the amendments proposed would render it
still more acceptable.
MIR Norman said the old or present law
requires all the arbitrators to agree to the
award. One is chosen by the miner, a
second by the owner Of the property, and
if these two cannot agree, third by the
two already chosen. If the owner of the
growing crop, or other property, selects a
personal friend, who will not agree to a
reasonable compensation, nothing can be
done, and the miner is denied the right to
enter Oh the lands Under the bill, as
amended, it is only necessary for two of
the arbitrators to agree, and therefore much
Of the present difficulty experienced under
this law would be abrogated In his
county (Calaveras) the miners demanded
such an amendment, so that the arbritra-
tors, or a majority Of them could agree.
The bill was then considered as en-
crossed for third reading by-Ayes, Is,
noes, T.
Mr.. Coffroth said he was opposed to the
original bill and also to this bill that bv
far the greater number of his constituents
were desirous that the bill should be de.
foated. In the mines he said it was not
uncommon for men to plow large tracts an
inch or an inch and half deep, put 8
brush fence around it costing FROM one te
two dollars for ten rods, or perhaps for a
quarter of mile, and this piece Of land
they call cultivated, and require the miners
who desire to mine within the enclosure
to give them bonds in heavy amounts fol
any damage they may do. These men
are merely spectators. He lnstanced one
case in his own county (Tuolumne) where
the ground was plowed or scratched to the
depth OF an inch or so and covered with
barley, the cost of all of which did not
exceed the sum of $500, yet those who
wished to use it for mining purposes had to
pay the owner 81 800 for the liberty. lie
then abandoned it, and it is now open to
entry by anybody.
Mr.. Vaudeville said he did not approve
of the orr ginal law, but he certainly IA
vored the amendments. If his colleague
{ Mr.. Coffroth) or any other member would
introduce bill to repeal the law, he would
vote for it, but be could not refuse to vote
for good amendment to a bad law.
Mr.. Coffroth admitted that the amend
ments were good, but the law to be amended
is odious, and he hoped his colleague Mr..
Mandeville) would not sustain the amend
ments, in order that the original law, if
permitted to stand as it is, would be easier
repealed
Mr.. Norman would oppose any bill to
repeal all laws on the subject of regulating
the mines. He had been practical miner,
and had resided in mining districts ever
since '49, and he knew that the miners did
not want this law repealed-they recog-
nizcd the principle that "the laborer is
worthy of his hire" and were willing to
pay rancheros for any injury they might
do their crops. In saying this, he spoke
only of the American miners, and not Of
the Ignorant foreigners, and especially not
of the black ones Mexicansa and such like
Mr.. Coffroth-With all the courtesy of
debate, wish to ask the gentleman from
SaldNeIaS, VT. N'IindH HhctHeI tnlS
very question was not made political one
during the last canvass in his county. and
whether or not the miners there opposed
him, because he voted for the original bill,
so that he fell some 500 behind his party
vote?
Dir. Norman said that they had de-
nounced the bil-that he took it with him
everywhere during the campaign, and had
it at all the meetings he addressed-that
he stated to them that he was opposed to
repeating the bill, but that he would favor
amendments toit such as are now proposed
Alr. Bell said that he, last year, heard
Senator who once represented this State
IN Congress, bitterly denounced because he
once proposed to lease the mineral lands.
Mr.. Norman-What Senator do vou