Daily national Democrat., 1858-11-24

states 0s. John Pdrrot ct dIs.-Il EgUity-Opin-
ions Of Hon. H. IT. .HcAtister and Hon. Ogden
H0tHidH, on motion for injunction and appoint
nent Of q Pecet0er.-SaR francisco, T0toRe %
Blcon lS5S.
CONCLUDED
We have stated that even if it be proved that
some sevdences OF title relied upon by the
owners Of this mine had been obtained after the
sovereignty of Mexico had ceased, and are there
fore legally worthless, yet some equitable conside-
rations in their favor arise from the fact that if
| Mexico had not been superseded by the conquer
ing act of the act of the United States, these ev
dences would have been valid and effective. 1t
may be urged that the same consideration can be
claimed for such titles as those of Iimantour and
Others which are IN their essence frauds. The
cases are widely different. The property to which
title Is here asserted had been in continuous, Open
ana notorious possession. From its nature, there
| could have been no stronger motives to obtain
title utter the advent of the United States, than
would have existed had Mexico remained in
{ pOWer-as In the case OF agricultural and town
lands, the value of which has been enormously
enhanced by them pouring of American citizens
under their own Government. To the MINER
whose metals find market abroad, it matters
not who is sovereign, or whether there are five
! thousand or five millions of people in the country.
! His profit, depending the yield of his mine
and the price OF its products abroad can neither
| be augmented nor diminished by the question Of
local sovereignty the increase of local prosper
! ty. or local population.
THIS whole decision may be comprised in few
words. The plaintiff, as lord paramount of the
sOll, Claiming the estate in separate action pend
ing elsewhere, brings bis suit 20 prevent defend
| ants extracting the ore during this pendency,
alleging that they are holding under pretended
tltle-in fact, are mining without any title at ALL
The defendants urge the rights acquired under
Mexico, and thelrlong possessions present such ev-
| dences OF title as they have, and further claim
| that the United States has given permission to all
| the world to mine upon the public lands, and by
| that permission have dedicated the minerals to
the public; and if these lands be public under
! that permission they are working. The Court
! hnds that plaintiff has sufficient interest in the
| land to entitle him to restrain defendants from
working and that the defendants have failed to
show sufficient documentary title, and therefore
! the injunction is granted.
The decision involves interests beside which
even the great value of the Almaden property
dwindles into inSigniiicance. Once establish the
doctrine here land down, and every mining estab-
lishment in this great State will beat the mercy
OF the Government officials. ANY man may be
ousted from his mining clam at any time, for
none can show title Once let clique of petit
foggers obtain leave to the name fthe United
States and they may blackmail any mining pro-
pretor in the country, whose property is suffi-
GENTLY important to be worth the effort and ter
rlty him with threats of suit to which he has
no legal defense.
To US, here, this is sufficiently alarming, but
abroad men viii attach more weight to a decs-
ion of high judicial authority, and timid capital
VIII 1ee country where the sovereign, like
great spider, invites it, by the tempting bait of
free mines, into his tolls and ahsorbs it when he
gets it safely invested under the plea that he
not show his documentary permission Surely
1t beho3ves the Court, as the highest judicial rep
resentative of the sovereign power, to explain to
a large class now seriously alarmed how far they
may depend on the TOLERANCE of the Government
in the enjoyment of their mining estates. The
great fascination of California adventure is, that
while ordinarily it earns reasonable gains, it has
| the chance at any moment of digging into a spleu-
did fortune. The next ten yards opened in any
mining claim in the State, n1aY reveal incalcula-
! BILE wealth to the MINER But this charm is
wholly destroyed, if that miner knows that when
ever fortune may so favor him. the grim arm of
power can be moved by the cupidity of its favor
ties, aud at any time deprive him of his wealth
by the assertion Of its superior title.
Suppose the land, on which these mines are, to
be the property of the United States, does the
position of the occupants differ from that Of thou
sln0s ofminers throughout the length and breadth
| OF California? Does the Government really CLAIM
the right to interfere with our mines and our min
lug possessions and at will to possess itself of
| claims and our improvements
1t has given the broadcast license to extract
minerals from its soil BY tacit invitation the
world has been encouraged to mine in California.
Dl pIcatlCG anu activity OF leuS OF IuOuSdDuS
of miners, it is evident that the world has cordi-
ally accepted the invitation. No one will for
| mOmets pretend to say, that the Government in
| tends to make distinction between one metal
and another, or between one portion of Califor-
| MIA and another: or that while Congress design
ed to permit mining for gold in Nevada county,
| 1t intended to prohibit mining for quicksilver III
Santa Clara county. Of course there can be no
such intended distinction. The entire State has
been settled thousands Of mines opened, and
millions expended in mining improvements, with
out title, without express PERMISSION without the
shadow of legal rght-depending on the univer-
sally known and settled policy Of the Govern
ment
/ Upon the principle of the decision in this case
there is nothing to hinder an INDUCTION being sued
for tomorrow at the instance Of the United
States, against the owners of the Alison Ranch
Lead in Nevada county, and nothing to prevent
the injunction from being issued and the mine
closed IHey are committing excessive waste,
and their waste carries off the very substance of
the estate The land and the minerals are the
undoubted property Of the United States. They
do not even claim to have a shadow of title eX-
cept possession. Their possession is no more
c0mplete-it has not been for one-haf so long
time-as that of these defendants. The United
! States have, if possible, stronger right to their
pold than to the quicksilver of New Almaden
! for the owners Of the latter have equities derived
from Mexico to which the former have no pre-
| tense, anu GTedleT age udS ilOlt HldtuItu ullu
strengthened those possessory rights to which
they are equally entitled with the other.
Were motion TO be made, The United States
gs The Proprietors of the Alison Ranch Mine,
the Court in granting an injunction, which 1t
would be constrained to dO it seems to us, upon
| the precedent established by ITSELF might an
nounce the same conclusions as in page 81 Of
this pamphlet: "That the complainants have eX-
hbed a title TO the premises in dispute, which
entities them to an injunction to stay waste and
that the character of the waste complained OF is
what the law deems rreparable mischief" and,
! in language stronger than in this decision, it
might add" that the defendants have not exhb-
| i ed any documentary title whatever, true, false
! or miXed-that they are merely naked trespassars
and cannot plead the right of pre-empton, mas
much as Congress expressly exempted mineral
lands from being acquired in that way"
Looking at the immense interests IN the gold
mining regions of this State, which are leopard
lied by this decision, we had hoped to find that
the Court mad succeeded in discovering some
particular and especial reasons why these de-
lendants should be enjoined from extracting their
quicksilver ores which would not apply to the
proprietors of mining property generally. On
this particular topic the Court is somewhat re-
served. So far as we understand it, the whole
question is disposed of under cover OF what APP
pears TO us a very technicality.
In effect, the Court says: "These defendants
have set up an adverse claim to the land as against
the United States. They did not enter under any
license from the Government, and they claim the
land adversely as owners" "They cannot in the
same breath set up superior adverse title, and
also a right to work the mine by reason Of the
| dedication of the minerals to the public" These
sentences embody the reasons of the Court page
A to 46
What does the Court mean by the setting up Of
a claim to the property ADVERSE to the United
States? These defendants were found in possess
sion of their property, under certain rights, ac-
quircd or claimed under Mexico the predecessor