Mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado Co., Cal.) 1854-1860, 1859-12-31
Mining and Agricultural Lands.

ced Mining Company, anu sui more recent
decision By Judge Hardy, Of the 10th Judi
cial District, much interest has been manifest
ed in the question as to what the law is gov
crning the conflicting rights Of miners and
agriculturiStS The question is one Of vast
importance TO the entire mining region, and 1t
is not surprising that the people should have
given TO it large amount Of attention. We
look upon it as fortunate that these decisions
have been rendered at this time, just upon the
eve Of the meeting Of the Legislature. because
il it shall be found that the law, as it now
stands, is not conf1rmable TO justice or the
public interests, the representatives Of the peo-
pie may make such changes therein as the ma.
turc of the case may require
We understand the decision Of the Supreme
Court TO Be that the owner Of land, who has a
patent from the Government, shall be protect.
cd in the possession not only Of the land hut
Of all the minerals which may be contained in
the So,-that the fee simple owner Of land
may prevent all persons from mining there
on, either fr gold or any other nluncral.
We understand the decision Of Judge liar
dy to 60 still farther, and to decide that every
poSScsSor Of land by means Of mn enclosure, is
the owner thereof as to all persons except the
Government of the United States. The rca-
soning is somewhat as follows: Possession Of
land is evidence Of title in fec, andiS sufficient
evidence Of such title. The presumption Of
title which arises from possession, may be re-
Luttcd only 10y proving 0c'"al owntr,hip in
another. Possession # hud gires te tie tas-
S'Ss"r right against trtry enc cho cannot Is.
tdbHsl tile. Now, when ono cnc!oscs the
Wild land t'f t;oveFRIHeHt- aRd-t4u$ takes
possession, il is out Of the power Of any per-
son to CS'dblish Il title against him, for the ii,
tie is in the Government. and mrrc trcSpaSS-
er entering the enclosure, without any title
whatever. cannot set up the title Of the Gov
eminent in his defense. Thus, then. while
the Government asserts no claim, the Courts
will regard party in the actual possession Of
land, in the light Of Il legal owner and entitled
to protection to the same extent. In the Bid
die Boggs case the Supreme Court have dcci
ded that miner will not be permitted to mine
upon the grounds Of person having the legal
title, and if the positions of Judge Handy are
correct, then neither will miners br permitted
to work upon enclosed lands in any part Of the
mining region, without the consent Of the par.
ties in possession.
We are not lawyer enough to determine
! N.hnthnr Iul0n Ilor,lv hos I,,;l.,,l tI,, lc,,
correctly or not and there seems to be some
difference of opinion among members Of the
bar. Some gentlemen, in whose opinion we
have confidence believe that Judge Hardy
. decision W be sustained by the Supreme
; Court. 1t would seem to US to be the better
course to act in the premises as though the de-
cision Of Judge Hardy were the settled law,
: and to seek through the Legislature such mod
itication thereof as the public good may re.
quire.
: The whole subject is surrounded with diff.
, cultieS Mining is certainly as yet the most
I important business Of the State and without
it the mining region would scarcely be pcopIcd
= at all. But the Agricultural interest is daily
and rapidly becoming more important, and the
rights Of the farmer must be recognized and
protected against mere wanton interference
Many thousand acres Of land are now enclosed
in this county and under profitable cultivation,
: in orchards, crops, gardens, &c. Within those
enclosures, or some Of them, are doubtless con
tanned valuable mines of the precious metals
= Thu land j. rolnahln for uricuIfuro much
so perhaps as for mining, in many cases, but
to work the mines will render the portion
worked less valuable perhaps vHlutlrSs, for
any purpose whatever. Shall the farmer lose
his land, or the miner be prevented from work
ing his mine:
Although the question is now important vet
not nearly so much so as it must very shortly
become. If it shall once be understood that a
man may, by fencing in land, exclude the mi
ncrs thcreirom, and himself become the owner
4 not only Of the soil but Of the mineral, then
: will the forests of the country be scarcely suf
. ticient to afford fencing timber for those who
c will enclose lands, not in good faith for cult.
h walton, but solely to secure the mineral
p Rather than such state Of affairs, il would
5 be better that the mineral lands be put up and
a sold by the government But even If oil en-.
closures were made in good faith, still there is
an immense amount Of the mineral land which
!. may be proftably put under cultivation, and
$ will be appropriated for such purpore at very
e carly day. Allthcse considerations should in,
G ducc us to urge an early settlement of the re-,
) Spectivc rights Of parties, which are now so
conflicting and difficult
Until the late decisions, We had supposed
the question settled, and as fairly as possible,
= by the Act Of 1855, which permitted miners
TO enter upon and mine out enclosed mineral
grounds by paying to the agricuturalist the
value Of any crops, trees, or other improve.
: mcnts which would be injured or destroyed
by the mining We regarded this law as as
" fair compromise for the different interests,
l. as could be devised. But the decision of
e Judge Hardy would declare this law uncon.
" stitutional, since it would take from one cit
zen the control, to certain extent, Of his own
c property and vest its use in another.
BY declaring void the law Of 1865, the
whole question Of the rights Of different claim.
ants Of mineral lands is left entirely at sea-
The only course left is to procure proper leg