New-York daily tribune., 1858-04-16
CALIFORNIA.
THE GOLD MINES IN PRIVATE HANDS
DECLARED PUBLIC PROPERTY.

THE GOLD MINES IN PRlNAlE HANDc
DECLARED PUBLIC PROPERTY.
frar snr Own Correspondent.
SAN FRANCISCO, March 10, 1865.
Jn the latter part of 1853 our Supreme Court
decided in the of Hicks agt Bell that the State
and not the Federal Government the owner of
all the mines of gold and silver within the Limits of
the State. In the opinion rendered at the time in
| the case, the Court said that uHder the common
| law of England the King was always considered
a. proprietor by virtue of his sovereignty Of all
mines of gold and silver. Blackstone mentions the
right TO mines as one of the prerogatives Of the
crown. In the case of the Queen agt. the Earl Of
Northumberland, PlOwden, $40, this right was
recognized by the English Court of E1chequer.
The English common law is in force in the United
States and in California, except where changed by
statutory or Constitutional enactments, or by our
own new common law; and no change has ever
been made in regard 10 the prOprietorship of mines
being an incident of sovereignty. On the contrary,
that principle has been expressly recognized in sew
eral Ut the states.
Under our form Of government the several States
are sovereign; the federation is not sovereign; it
has none of the character OF sovereignty: it is
mere compact with agents permitted by the sOve-
reign States 10 exercise certain powers. Califor-
mia. upon her admission into the Union as State,
on an equality with the original thirteen, became
sovereign, and BY virtue of her sovereignty became
the owner of the mines Of gold and silver within
her limits.
The Court did not make special mention of the
compact made between the Federal Government
and California by the act Of admission into the
Union wherein il IL declared that an express
condition Of the admission should be that the State
should 'neyer inte rere with the primary disposal
"of the public lands" and should do no act
whereby the title Of the United States thereto
should be impaired or questioned. The CONT sd.
mttcd that the Federal Government s the owner Of
the public land, in the State but owns them on the
same tenure with private proprletors-the owner.
ship not extending to the mines of precious metals.
Such is brief outline OF the argument Ia the
case Of Hicks agt. Bell. The State had never set
up any claim 20 the mines and the decision came
very Unexpectedly. Ii was not fayoraby received.
The Supreme Court was not respected, nor re-
spectacle; all IFS Judges were unit for The posi-
tions they occupied two of them were VIGOROUSLY
and grossly profgate men. and two OF them were
fllbusters and nuiiiers OF very dark stripe. The
press repud aed their decision aud the Legislatures
and the Governors ignored II.
If the ownership Of mines is really under our
law an attribute OF sovereignty an attribute which
might be delegated, ae the States have delegated
he exclusive right tf coining money-which is an
other attribute OF soyereignty-to the General Gov
ernmsnt and the delegation might, presume, be
made az eaectually in compact such as that of the
act of admission of this state into the Cnion ratified
by acceptance as by aConstitution. If the compact
in the act OF admission be binding, the question
arises whether the ownership of the public land inn
plies the ownership of the precious metal in the
land; whethe. the promise of CallftTnia, that she
would not deny the title of the Union TO the public
land. extended also TO the Mines As to the actual
Interpretation Of the compact by the people OF Cal
foInis and by Congress- there can be no doubt that
land was supposed to include the mines; but the
- legal ntendmeDt" might be- different
However. the decision in the case Of Hicks agt
Bell has now been reversed. On the 10Th inst
The Supreme Court decided in the case of B0gg.
set. The Merced Mining Company, that the Federal
Goyernmer, owns the gold, not only in the puslie
lands, but also in the land granted away BY Mexico
BOegs s a lessee of Fremont (who holds United
States patent fer the land under Mexican grant,
and be sued to eject the defendants, association
which has been IN possession OF the tract in dispute
for seven year, and has spent $-00,000 in erecting
machinery and improvements for the purpose OF min
| ing quartz The Ease was decided in favor Of the
| the plaintiff in the District Court: the Supreme
Court reverse the decision. and order faa Judgment
| Ia be entered for the defendants.
] They set iortL their We've oi the csse ~ Il .oDg