The Placer herald., 1857-12-26
Taxing Mining Claims,

strenuous effort will be made in the next Legis-
ature to procure the passage of laws in some
form to tax mining claims situated on the public
lands of this State. A great effort seems to be
making to convince that body that such taxation
is necessary-irst because the State can and must
have an additional revenue from that source, and
second, that without such enactment the rate of
taxation is very unequal and consequently unjust
in the different parts of the State.
The first question that must necessarily arise
will be the poacer of the Legislature to make such
enactments. Upon this point chiefly shall con-
fine my observations.
1t is well known that nearly all the mineral
lands of this State are part of the public lands
which belong to the Federal Government. 1t is
true some years since it was strenuously urged
by certain hair-brained politicians that these
lands belong to the State by virtue of her sover-
eighty, and not to the Federal Government-but
am not aware that any respectable court, in or
out of the State, either State or Federal. has
given any sanction to this assumption, that any
party in this State has had the temerity to en-
dorse such a doctrine
The position of the General Government in re-
fully settled and recognized to be this-that she
occupies the position of any other private land
holder, with this only difference, that she is ex-
empt from State taxation. In most OF the States
the stipulation is made by act OF Congress that
even these lands shall be exempt from taxation
for certain period after the General Government
has conveyed her title and possession to the set
is do for tIo of
encouraging the rapid and early settlement of
the public lands, and in most instances has been
found mutually beneficial to both the State and
General Government for the reason that. thirdly
the latter much more rapidly makes disposal
of these lands and realizes their value in cash
and the former receives large accessions to its
population and property that become subjects of
taxation for State and county purposes.
If any doubt could be raised as to the true
position of the General Government in respect
to the public lands in this State, it would be at
once settled by the provisions of the Act of Con
gress under which the State was admitted into
the Union. Section third reads thus:-
SEC. 3. .4nd be it FURTHER enacted That the
said State of California is admitted into the Union
upon the express condition that the people of said
State, through their Legislature or otherwise
shall never interfere with the primary disposal
of the public lands within its limits and shall
pass no law and do act whereby the title of the
shall be impaired or questioned; and that they
shall never lay any tax or assessment whatsoever
upon the public domain of the United States and
in no case shall nonresident proprictors, who are
citizens of the United States, be taxed higher
than residents; and that all the navigable waters
within the said State shall be common HIGHWAYS
and forever free, as we'll to the inhabitants of said
State as to the citizens of the United States with
out any tax impost or duty therefor: procided
that nothing herein contained shall he construed
as recognizing or rejecting the propositions ten
dered by the people of California as articles Of
compact in the ordinance adopted by the convcn
ton which formed the constitution of that State"
Approved September 9, 1850
1t may be said that this provision is imperative
for the reason that it was never formally ratified
by the Legislature of this State, and that such
ratification was necessary as it was in the nature
Of Il contract. wherein the people of the United
States, through Congress their agent and the
people of this State. are the contracting parties
But this argument if good forany purpose proves
by far too much for its purpose and completely
defeats itself 1t will be remembered that this
State only became member of the Federal Union
under and by virtue of the provisions Of this
identical Act of Congress. II then. ratification
or acceptance of its provisions became necessary
by the Legislature of this State to give it effect
and the act is imperative so far as the obiga-
tons of the State are concerned. for want of such
ratification, then clearly by parity of reasoning
the State Of California failed to become a member
of the Union for want of the same ratifcaton.-
Either the State is Il member Of the Union under
the provisions and subject to the conditions Of
that Act. or she is still but part Of the Terrific
ries Of the United States. and without even any
Territorial Government sanctioned by Congress.
But the uniform course of conduct of our State
Government and Congress show. that both have
considered and treated the Act as fully operative
and valid-that under it California became one
=. I Al. Al
and acknowledged herself bound by all the pro-
visions of this Act Of Congress- including the part
above quoted.
If it be true then. that the public lands while
they continued such, are not subject to State tax
alton; and if it be true (Which no Que questions J
that all. or nearly, of the mines are situated on
the public domain how, | ask, is it possible for
the Legislature Of this State to touch the ques-
ton in any manner by her legislation?
Those who seem now to be so eager to besege
the Legislature for the redress of their real or
anc ed grievances, had better devise or consider
the power of that august body, to help their dis
ress before attempting the yet more difficult task
Of satisfying that body that it would be wise to
make such enactments provided the power was
conceded.
1t may be asked. perhaps, if such is the relative
position of the State and Federal Governments
in respect to the mineral lands, by what authority
the State assumes to control in any manner the
rights of miners within this mineral region? And
especially, upon what basis has it been held by
the Supreme Court of this State that the mineral
wealth, consisting of the precious metals are the
exc elusive property of the State and do not belong
to the General Government; as was decided in
the case of Hicks ct al VS.. Bell ct al and since
repeatedly affirmed?
In respect to the latter question: it has been
seriously doubted by many respectable jurists in
this State, whether the reasons upon which these
decisions were made, pc ssess any validity; and it
is yet exceedingly problematical if not probable
that whenever this doctrine comes to be reviewed
by the Federal Courts, as it inevitably must soon
er or later, (and whenever it occurs it must be
conclusive as against the decisions by our State
Court, as the subject matter is confessedly within
the special jurisdiction of the federal Judiciary
that this assumption of ownership will be fatty
denied as a sheer usurpation of the rights Of the
Federal Government. But independent of all the