Daily national Democrat., 1858-11-24

sources, ana materially promoting its progress ?
- u uetIiulehtal to mans rights in California
W nave the gathered moss of years on his land
marks, TO have grown gTey-haired i'm his posses
slouF Is II a misfortune to have lived in Cahf1r.
ma before the sovereignty Of the United States /?
DO our privileges really grow less in propor-
uoh 10 the length Of time we have been in earn
ing them or are they emascuated by our obed-
ence to a special law?
One OF two things is inevitable-either the
proprietors of the Almaden Mines have tho ril,bt
to extract their Ores because Of their possassion
ana equitable title derived under Mexico. which
nures now TO their benefit under the Trnitsd
States, or they have, so far as the United States
is concerned, the common and universal rigbt
which has been conceded to every miner in Cali
lorna, from tle acquisition of the country bv its
present sovereign, Of mining without let or him
drance, stint or limit. The assertion bv tben nf
their rights upon the broader basis, and under
the elder claim, as citizens of Mexico. cannot de.
stroy their privileges acquired as citizens of the
United States. The one they obtained kv n,.inr
occupancy, the other by continued possession
Inc former merges into and is strengthened bv
the latter, IN uninterrupted continuity and with
accumulated force, constituting a double and
harmonious right. But even supposng the de.
endants had been reatig instead of Technically ad-
verse to the United States could their rights nm
der Mexico be even preiudiced bv their snbsr-
quent rights under the United States or vice ver
saF II man has two chains to his title cannot
he set up both without the one nullifvino tbn on
er? Is the hunter who has double borrelled
gun to be denied the privilege of shooting at all
or OF diScharglng the second barrel, should the
hrst iall? We cannot see how the man who snts
up even an adverse claim against another is In
be barred from availing himself Of rights acquired
by consent.
We have heard it argued out of doors that the
defendants, If they have set up anv fraudulent
claims have deprived themselves Of their valid
and acknowledged rights. We deem the position
wholly untenable. fraud is punishable bv GER
tam defined penalties, among which, we take it,
are not found forfeiture OF real estate orauthor-
ty to close mans workshop, mandatory or
mine. man rightfully entitled by pre-cmption
TO 100 acres of public lands which he occupies
and improves, would not vitate ttat right were
he to carpet his farm over with other titles. be
they ever so fraudulent. The owner of quartz
mine, tied thereto by the consent of the Gov
ernment, would not denude himself of his lend
were he to forge steal or even commit murder. If
two men owned a house by a certain sufficient IL
tie, and one of them should concoct another and
fraudulent title, would that fraud ignore the valid
title under which they both hold? We opine
not For specific crimes there are specific pun
ishments, defined by precise statute We think
there Is no such penalty in the criminal code as
the coniiscation of real estate, for crime much
less for the mere unp-oven allegation of crime
We don't pretend to deny the right Of the SOW
ereign power to assume the possession of its min
eral lands, and dispose Of them as it sees ft-ca
hmltous as the assertion of that right would be
to California; but we deprecate that unequal ad-
ministrati0n of the law which would single out
one individual amongst thousands in a communi-
ty, and strip him of his property, while his fell
lows, with inferior, or at least, more recently ac-
qured equities, are left in undsturbed possess
ion The enjoyment of equal rights is inaliena-
lV on hut tbo
we hve BY this decision, either the rights of an
entire people, to their chiefest means of existence
and prosperity, are threatened by the power under
whose protection they have grown and hourished
and to whose paramount ownership there can be
no demur-which is the first provocative to n rev
olution or, else, the sacred guarantee of eaual
rights is violated and broken in the case of an in
dlvldual amongst that people, which is an act of
oppression and absOlutism-the more strikipO
because it stand like solitary monument of
wrong in the midst of people rejoicing in the
sunshine of tolerance and right
1t is argued that the injunction is temporary in
its duration, pending the adjudication of a suit
between the United States aud the defendants in
this action. Is it nothing to interrupt their large
and lOurlshing business TO disband its troops of
engineers, skilled artisans and drilled laborers.
and scatter them abroad to engage in other pur-
suits; to shut OFF arbitrarily the current of their
prosperity, the altiuence OF which was not theirs
q
channels through the community, adding to the
wealth, occupation and happiness of the people at
largeY And tor what reason? That the proper
ty OF the United States may not be wasted pend
ing an inquiry into the title of the occupants.-
Men-whose capital and whose energy have been
expended for twelve years in creating out of val
ueless mountain wilderness a splendid estate.
who have, during that time, so "wasted and de-
pleted" the property as to have augmented its val
ne from nothing to millions who have explored
ana tunneled, and built and improved under the
auspices of the Government, and without inter
ruption by it for period equivalent to a genera
ton elsewhere-might certainly be permitted to
continue their operations undisturbed by the SOW
ereign during the pendency of judicial inqui-
ry.
Would the vigilant attorneys of the United
State, who now with astonishing zeal assert the
title Of the sovereign, solely-yes SOLELY with
view to protect the public nterest--would these
ardent patriots have made such herculean exer-
tions had the property been as it was twelve
years agoY Would they have consumed their
brains with eloquent effort, for naked hills and
bear tracks? Such only was the property claimed
by the plaintiff. Not by him were caverned those
huge underground ramtcations, opening up at
enormous cost, the approaches to the coveted
ores Not by him were erected those extensive
smelling works, with their costly and durable
appurtenances. Not by him was laid out and
UuliJ llldt dlu DcdullIul village, Wlere elc
gance and sodity blend in a style found no
where else in the State. Not his, one ot or title,
stick or stone, of that magnificent mining inn
provement, which bears in every part of it evil
dences of LIBERAL almost lavish expenditure, of
spirited and energetic management Of thrift, vi
tality and prosperity to which Californans al
ways turn with pride, as the most picturesque
and striking example ofther country's wealth and
progress. These are none Of his.
Waste! Would to Heaven that all the bald
hills aud brush-entanged gulches of California
were as superbly wasted
We venture to say that no instance can be
found amongst the people acknowledging the
common law, and using the English language for
the last one hundred years, in which an inunc-
tion has issued at the instance of the sovereign,
to restrain Il subject from working minerals,
where the entry had been made without force, and
the possession had grown mature by continuance.
1t has been reserved for the freest country in the
world with regard to mineral privileges, and for
a court, OF large and scarcely trammelled equity,
to set the precedent.
But should the inquiry into the title of defend
ants prove adverse to them; should the United
States demonstrate their right to the mine, its
property its revenues its rents, issues, and profits
then what? Is it pretended that the Govern
mcnt will enter into possession, and work the
mine, and appropriate the income2 Does the
most liberal Government in the world contem-
plate absorbing under right of its paramount IT,
tie, the discoveries, the abors, the emoluments of
a few of its people; of entering upon the fruits of
their toll, OF coniseatng the splendid results of
their enterprise, merely because they are of great
value and because 1t has the abstract right and
power so to dO-especally in case where the
pioneers and improvers have been prevented from
completely acquiring quittance for their land by
the very act which gave that Governmentnow the
right to enter, viz the conquest Of the country
We do not entertain such a humiatug idea
for moment; neither do we believe the Govern
ment to be the real plaintiff in this action. The
nominal right Of the Government has been used
to subserve other and concealed purposes. We
suppose some crafty walters on political provi-
dence, whose brains have leisure to hatch plots,
because their hands lack the nerve of honest in.