San Andreas independent., 1858-03-20

Important Supreme Court Decision.

Ahe uecisloh rendered by the Supreme
Court of California, on Monday last, in
the matter of Biddle Boyd VS.. The 1uer-
ced Mining Company, is the most i'm
portant in its bearings upon the interests
of our people, of al questions yet dis
posed of by that tribunal.
The subject of controversy originated
as follows
On the 29th day of February, 1874, Gov
ernor Michetorena granted to Juan B. Alva-
RADIO tract of land known by the name of the
Mariposas to the extent of ten square leagues.
On the 10th of February, l847, Alvarado con-
veyed his title, by warranty deed, to John c.
Fremont. The claim was presented to the
Board of United States Land Commissioners,
and finally confirmed by the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States at the
December term, 1854. A survey was made in
July, 1855, and a patent issued to Col Ere
mont February 10th, 1856. On the 22d day
of April 1857, Colonel Fremont leased part
of the tract, being the premises in dispute, to
the plaintiff, for seven years, at monthly rent
of 1000. In May, 1851, the defendant then
and ever since corporation for mining pur-
poses, entered upon and took possession of the
premises, and has continued in possession,
working the quartz veins and extracting the
gold therefrom, and has expended, in the erec-
ton of machinery and other improvements,
upwards of $500, ,000 This action was brought
by the plaintiff to recover possession of the
property and damages for its detention since
the date of the lease. By a stipulation be-
tween the attorneys, the defendant was al
lowed to set up in defense any matter that
could be the subject of bill in equity. The
plaintiff had judgment in the Court below, and
the defendant appealed.
Judge Burnett remarks, in the outset:
"The case presented by the record is one of
the most important that has ever been consid
cred by this Court, not only in regard to the
pecunary value of the subject in controversy,
but in reference to the consequences likely to
flow from the decision. We have given to the
case that careful consideration which its mag
nitude demanded
Under the view we have taken of this case,
there are only two positions necessary to be
examined:
l. Whether the title to the mineral passed
to Col. Fremont?
2. Whether conceding that it did not, the
defendant has the right to extract the gold,
while the title in fee simple of the land is in
the lessor of the PLAINTIFF"
The Court held that the Supreme Court
of the U. States, in confirming the title
IN fee of Col Fremont to the Mariposa
Grant, only affirmed rights already granted
by Mexico; and that the only question
before that Court was, "What rights had
been granted by Mexico?" That the
uniform practice of the Mexican Govern
ment had been to reserve the minerals in
her lands, and never pass them to the
grantee without express stipulation to
that effect, and that the Fremont Grant
did not contain any such; that the title
to the minerals passed from Mexico to
the United States by treaty, and had
never been ceded by any act of the Uni
ted States Government to COL Fremont
or anybody else. Consequently, the title
still resides in the United States
On the question whether the defend
ant has right to extract the gold, ad-
mitting the right of Col Fremont in
fee simple to the land, the Court held,
that the right to the gold carried with it
the right to search and dig for it, as
necessary incidents; for the ownership of
the minerals would be of no value with
out the right to extract it; and the right
of the Government could only be exer-
cised through its agents; that the defend
ants, who were in the act of digging
ditch through the lands of COL Fremont,
for the purpose of conducting water-an
element necessary for the procurement of
the gold-were lawfully recognized as the
agents of the Government, under the
general license which is presumed has
been conceded to all American citizens to
work the mines.
On this branch of the subject, the Court
held as follows:
alt is very true that there has been no ex-
press Act of Congress creating this license
But the circumstances are peculiar. Had the
Government simply permitted persons to oc- |
cupy its lands for agricultural or mechanical
purposes, when such occupancy could not i'm
pair, but enhance, the value of the property
then the implication of license would not be
so strong as in the case of mineral lands,
where the property IS continually and rapidly
wasting away under the process of mining,
which, in fact, removes all that is of any value
in the estate ITSELF We cannot, under such
circumstances, believe that the Government
intends to object. 1t must be its will that the
mineral should be thus taken And if this be
its will, no one else complain"
Finally, that the owner of mining
claim has, in practical effect, agood vested
title to the property, until his title is
divested BY the superior proprietor. His
right to protect the property for the time
being, under the peculiar circumstances
of the case, is as full and perfect as if he
was the tenant of the superior proprie-
tor for years or for life.
For the above reasons, judgment of the
Court below was reversed, the cause re-
uaanded the Court ord darad IN aufar iudo-