The Pioche weekly record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1877-1900, 1877-06-02
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES

STATES
Charles Forbes. Appellant, W.. Thos.
Gracey. Con. Virginia Mining Conn
pany, John w. Mackay and James
u. Fair.
mo. 1912. October Term, 1877.-Appealed from
the United States Circuit Court Tor the Dis
trict Of Nevada.
Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opin-
ion of the Court.
STATEMENT.
This was a suit brought by APPELLANT to
enioin the collector OF taxes for Storey
county. Nevada, from collecting a tax
imposed by the law of that state upon
the property of the Consolidated Vir-
ginia Mining Company, the appellant
being stockholder in the company and
an alien subject Of the Queen of Great
Britain. The tax is by the state statute
imposed upon the proceeds OF the mine
worked by the corporation, and is resist
ed on the ground that title to the land
from which the mineral is taken is in
the United States, and is not for that
reason liable to state taxation.
SYNOPSIS.
| Congress has, by statutes and tacit
consent, permitted individuals and cor
porations to dig out and convert to their
own use the ores containing the precious
metals found in the lands belonging to
the Government, without exactipg any
compensation for those ores, and with
out requiring the miner to buy or pay
for the land. 1t has gone further, and
recognized the possessory rights of these
miners as ascertained among themselves
by the rules which hava become the laws
of the mining districts as regards min
ing claims But IN doing this it has not
parted with the title to the land, except
in Cases where the land has been sold
If the tax of the State is levied on this
property right Of the United States, we
are bound to hold that it is void. II it
has levied on property OF the miner, and
may be collected without embarrassing
the title of the United States to its prop
erty, then there is no ground for inter
ference in this collection.
2. it is the ore after it has been separ-
ated from the bed in which it is found
and its proceeds and products, which
are taxed, and not the ore or mineral in
the earth. When this ore becomes de-
tached from the soil in which it is en-
bedded it becomes personal property,
the ownership of which is in the man
whose labor, capital, and skill has dis
covered and developed the mine and ex-
tracted the ore. 1t is then free from any
lien, claim, or title Of the United States,
and is rightfully subject to taxation by
the state as any other personal property
is.
3. In regard to the taxing OF this per-
sonal property, and the mode of collect
, ing it by sale, it does not appear thai
} the United States has any interest in the
tax, or in the sale of the properly taxed
The law OF Nevada which makes this tai
''a lien on the mines or mining claims
: from which the ores or minerals bearing
gold or silver are extracted for reduc
, tion," does not interfere with the righ
OF property of the government in tn,
lands IN which the mineral remains ar,
. extracted.
} 4. The words "mines or mining claims
S distinguish between the cases in whicl
y the miner is the owner of the soil, anI
! therefore has perfect title to the mine
! and those in which the miner does no
8 have title to the soil, but works the min
8 under what is we'll known in the mimi
g districts, and what is recognized by til
b act OF Congress. as mining claim. L
" the first case, the statute makes the ia
= a lien on the mine, because the title t
: the mine is in the person who owes an
It should pay the tax. In the other, th
+ tax is a lien only on the claim of th
miner; that is, on his possessory right
explore and work the mine under exis
>. ing'laws and regulations.
v In the former case, the United State
D. has no interest to be protected, and th
l. state is at liberty to declare and enforc
j. such lien for her taxes. In the latte
d also, snch right as the mining laws allo
b and as Congress comedies to develo
s and work the mines, is property in th
Il miner, and property Of great valu
i. That it is so, is shown most clearly b
!, the conduct OF the mining corporation
10 whose interest this suit is brought, whic
is for the purpose OF evading this tax. pc
IN mits its investment in this mine, said I
ID be worth from fifty to hundred million
,. Of dollars, to rest on this claim, this mel
ID possessory right, when it could OF rid
|. culously small sum compared to II
,e value OF the mine, obtain the goverl
,e ment's title to the entire land, soil, mil
= eral, and all. Those claims are the sui
ject of bargain and sale, and constitu
very largely the wealth of the Pacii
in coast states, They are property in Il
Ia fullest sense of the word, and their ow
o, ership, transfer, and use are govern'
is by laws, and are recognized by the stat
n. and federal government. This clai
ly may be sold. transferred, mortgaged, i
n herited, without infringing the title
ct the Uuited States. Why may it not al
I'd be made subject to lien for taxes, al
be sold to enforce the lien? We 8
nothing in principle or in any intere
es which the United States has in the lal
es to prevent it.
an Decree of the circuit court dismssi
IN the bill of appellant is affirmed.