Weekly Trinity journal., 1874-02-07
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY Z, 1874.
THE MINERAL LANDS,

Two bills have been presented for Con-
gressional action, both having reference
to the disposal by the government of the
mineral lands of this State. Ward, an
Illinois member, proposes that the lands
shall he sold at ten dollars an acre. Mr..
Ward may be very good legislator on
matters relating to the prairies and agri-
culture; but Of mountains and mining ne
knows nothing. There is no probability
that his bill will become q law--it will
be opposed by every member of the Pa
cific delegation, and the legislature Of this
State has already, by unanimous vote,
passed resolution protesting against the
passage Of the proposed law. Its effect
would be to close up the mines of this
State to poor men, leaving them at the
mercy of spectators, who would buy up
the richest at the present time and await
reductions in price for future operations.
The bill introduced by Mr.. Sargent is
deserving of more careful consideration.
Oui ulSl pIGcSlOlIS MtlC against Vic
bill, but since we haye seen its full text,
we have more favorable impression as
to its merits. The design of the present
law was to secure to every owner of a
mining claim the privilege Of purchasing
the ground on which his claim was loca-
ted, limiting the amount Of land to TWEEN
ty acres to each person, except in in
stances where parties had acquired vested
rights to n greater amount. The practice
has been however, to use the names of
friends until enough were secured to
make an entry Of 100 acres, and the de-
sign Of the Law was thus nGliifed. The
presumption is that all the lands lying
within the gold belt are mineral in char
acter, and are proceeded with as such un-
der the existing laws. The reality is that
nine acres out Of ten Gn this county, at
least,) are of greater value for other pur-
poses than mining. In Mr. Sargent's
bill, whore actual mining claims exist
they arc protected in the right of entry,
in the smallest subdivisions known TO the
law, while no change will be made in
law, or in Department regulations, re-
gardiBg lands within the railroad grants
now presumed TO be aineral in charac-
ter.
We regard the proposed change in the
price of mineral lands from 81 so to 81 %
per acre as good one. In fact we could
never see why mining land, if sold at all,
should be esteemed Of twice the value of
agricultural land. Every days work
done in extracting gold, every foot of
bedrock cleaned, decreases the value of
a mining claim, while agricultural land,
If properly treated, is Of as high value at
the end OF twenty years as when first
purchased and cultivated. Yet the the
ory of the government, as evidenced by
the price set upon the public domain, is
that the poorest quality of mineral land is
of twice the value Of the best quality of
lands sold for agricultural purposes. 1t
frequently happens that lands are of
equal value for both purposes, when the
lead can be worked out by tunnels, and
while at the same time farming opera
tions can be carried on upon the surface.
In former cases Of this kind conflicting
interests arose, which led 10 litigation and
ill-feeling between rival claimants, while
similar cases can, under the proposed
law, be settled without a resort to the
courts.
1t would be difficult to devise a statute
providing for the sale of the mineral
lands which would be wholly free from
objection, but we think the one under
consideration will work some very i'm
portant and necessary changes. So long
as the public lands of this State remain
undispos ID Of, they are open for Con-
gressional action, and we can look for
just such attempts at ignorant legislation
as that sought by this man Ward. The
new law, if passed, will facilitate and
simplify the entry Of mineral land, and
by the reduction in price, place it within
tle power of poor men to purchase,