Daily national Democrat., 1859-02-06
Disputes about Land.

The Land Offices in this State are overrun
with afidavits of parties who claim that
mineral lands are included in the surveyed
sections offered for sale this present month.
Many of these affidavits are met with con-
flicting affidavits which assert that the char
acter of the lands in question partakes more
of the agricultural than the mineral These
disputes are likely to cause vast amount of
i'll feeling in the country, for it is going to be
very difficult matter, indeed to draw the
exact line of distinction between mineral and
agricultural ground, and the decisions of the
Register in the different cases before him, are
bound to give dissatisfaction, whether he de-
eide the lands to be mineral or agricultural.
Indeed, there are large sections of agricultural
soil, exceedingly productive and very valua
bic for cultivation, which are nevertheless,
to greater or less extent, impregnated with
mineral. Some of it will pay welP for the
working, and other portions again only mod
srately, while there is scarcely any of the
agricultural land lying outside of the larger
river vallies which will not readily show
"the color"
The instructions to the Land Registers
from the Department at Washington are to
the effect, that, where the land is found TO
partake' jointly Of a mineral and agricultural
character, it shall be deem ed mineral if the
mineral character seems to predominant, and
agricultural if the agricultural character
seems to predominant. But, in numerous
cases the double character is SO evenly bal.
anced that to declare the land mineral would
give mortal offence to parties desiring to cul-
tivate it, and to declare it agricultural would
give equal offense to parties desiring to dig
it up for gold. In such cases as the one last
mentioned we should think that priority of
possession ought to govern the question. The
Land Officers must necessarily exercise an
almost unlimited degree of discretion in re-
gard to these questions, and if they decide,
ests of the country at large, in preference to
the mere interests of few individuals, we
opine that they will have done their duty.
1t seems to us that the agricultural inter-
ests of the State need encouragement far more
than the mineral interests, although neither
should be neglected Where the land is un-
doubtedly mineral, it should be exempted
from SALE and there is no doubt that large
tracts of strictly mineral land have been in
cluded in the Government surveys and are
now offered for SALE In Placer county, for
instance, the surveyors chain has actually
been run directly across mining bitches and
fumes and over the very ground where
miners were at work OF course no such
land ought to be sold. But, in all cases
where the land is well fitted for cultivation
and farmers have settled upon it or laid
claim to it for that purpose, it should be
set down for agricultural, and sold as such.
no matter if 1t does contain certain quanti-
ty of mineral To dig up the soil and de-
stroy it, by washing the ground bare to the
bed rock, for few hundred dollars worth of
gold, would be small benefit to the country
compared with the fencing it in by some
thrifty and industrious farmer, the establish
ment upon it of permanent home for his
family and the creation of large taxable
property from which to add to the revenues
of the State. There is enough mineral land
in the State, which is altogether mineral and
unfit for cultivation, without trenching upon
the cultivable regions which are even now
|. / IL
agriculture.