The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1860-02-07

must be dBirm0ttrely shown by those who
assert license from forbesrance. This
knowiedCr may be affirmed with reasons as
10 the mines Oh the public lands; but it is
uot ,Aowu--nor can it be-that the Gov
cfumcnt ever knew that parties claimed,
under IT. perm ssion or authority, 10 enter
upon private land held by title paramount
10 H. own and extract and remove the mine
RAJ Nor % We admit that the United
States-holdlng, as they DO with reference
{" the public property in the minerals, only
the position ot q lrlyate proprietor, with
the exception Of exemption from State taxa
tiou. having no municipal sovereignty or
right Of eminent domain within the limits
ot the State could, in 9eroca,ion of the
rights Of the local sovereign, to govern the
relations Of the citizens Of the State, and 10
prescribe the rules Of property, and its mode
oi disposition, and It's tcnurc-enter upon
or suthorlze al entry uron private proper
~, for the purpose Of extracting such mine
raj imbedded in the soil, which could only
be done by destroying the value of the in
heritance The United States, like any
other proprietor, can only exercise their
rights TO the mineral ON private property,
in subordination 10 such rules and regnla
tios rs the local sovereign may prescribe
Until such rules and regulations are estab-
lished, the landed proprietor may success
fully resist, in the Courts Of the State, all
attempts at invasion of his property, wheth-
or by the direct action of the United States,
or by virtue of any pretended license under
their authority The defense resting upon
such alleged license must consequently fail.
The premises in controversy IN the pres
ent case being private property 1t follows
that there is no pretense for the justiiica-
ton of the defense of license from either
the General or State Government. There
must be, AS held in Stokes VS.. Barrett, more
specific legislation than any yet rcscrted to
before the invasion of private property can
be permitted in search of or for tho cxtrac-
ton of mineral What that specific legis
laton must be it is unnecessary to deter
mine. 1t is reasonable to say that it must
embody provisions TOR the protection of the
rights of the landed proprietor and furnish
ample indemnity agalns: the damage aris-
ing from the injury to his possessions. The
doctrine Of an unlimited general license,
put forth in many instances and advocated
by the defense, is pregnant with the most
pernicous consequences. If upheld, it
must lead to the spoilation of landed es-
tates, under the pretense of mining, with
out possibility of protection or redress on
tie part Of the owner There is gold in
limited quantities scattered through large
and valuable districts, where the land is
held in private propretorship, and under
this pretended license the whole might be
invaded, aud, for all useful purposes, de-
silUyu1, no matter how little rcmunerative
the product of mining. The entry might
be made at all seasons. whether the land
was under cultivation or not, and without
reference to Its condition whether covered
with orchards. vineyards. gardens. or other
wise. judgement is given for plaintiff,
lessee OF Fremont
Still according to the Democratic press,
both the decisions of the Supreme Court oi
1888 and 1889 are good Democratic law,
and the faithful are bound to indorsc them.