Arizona citizen., 1879-02-22

time of the purchase then it shall be the property of the person who buys the placer claim. The same laws ap- ply to the case of @ sale of agricul- tural land by the United States. If al the tune of the sale there is not known to be any mine upon i;, either quartz or placer, and one is subsequently, dis covered, 1t becomes the property of tEe person who buys the agricultural land, and he takes it by virtue of his title to the agricultural land but if il IS known, then he cannot buy it as agricultural lard, but has to pay an en- hanced price for it as mineral land, the pri- pie bei-s- established by this legislas.On that when the Government sells or parts with its interest in the land it parts with its interest in every thing the land contains It organizes a tribunal which tries the question whether the land contains mineral or not at the time 1t makes the sale If the tribunal does not find that a mine exists there it all goes as agricultural land, even though subsequently, mine may be discovered The public policy of that Is obvious to avoid contests be- tween the miners who want 10 enter on the land and the man who has the patent of the United States.
 Now, in this case I say the Govern ment. of the United States is going to Givest itself of the title to this land {; t is going to quitclaim this land to these parties. So the bill p-ovides, and that is all it can do, quitclaim these lands.
 Mir. ChafFee. l should like 10 ask the Senator from California if the Gov ernment of the United States ever had any interest in these lands?
 MT. Sargent. The Government of the United States of course has title Tn the lands in the Territories of the United States. The Spanish and Mex ican government years ago, before we acquired them, made grants, more or less perfect, to parties residing iD these Territories, not supposing they were mineral lands but grazing lands, and they were considered agricultural lands. So far as these grants are right and valid the United States has no ti- tie within them; but it is question whether they are valid. If the gov eTnment of Spain or the government of Mexico divested itself of the title to these lands il Invested itself at that time of the minerals in them, as well as of any thing else they contained, as well as the lands themselves. So say the Supreme Court m the MaripO- sa case, and the wise head of my friend from Vermont need not be shaken at the proposition 1 make. The Supreme Court say in shis case. page 565 of the -r-s,-.----tr- ---i----..- ..- TI a--0 -4Sr, G-- preme Court Reports:
 Tn relation to that part of the argument which disputes his right, upon the ground that his grant em braces mines of gold or silver, iJ is sufficient tO say that under the mining laws of Spain the discovery of a mine of gold or silver did not destroy the title Of the individual to the land granted.
 And Mexico had the same laws, and this MaripOsa case was a grant under the laws Of Mexico.
 I do not want to talk out the hour of my friend, but I simply say that the subsequent discovery of mineral did net diyest the title. Now, at the time the grants were made by Mexico and Spain, 1t was not known that there were any minerals in the Territories or the State of California, or If their existence was known it was in such small quantity as not to excite obser- vatiOn in Mexico or elsewhere. The discovery of the mines was made sub seQuent 10 the making out of the great majority Of these grants, probably of every one of them that is valid. The subsequent discovery Ot the mines, under the laws of Spain from which the title was derived, would not divest the parties of their right. If 1t IS said this proves toe much, that then the whole section ough; to be stricken OUt, very well. follow the logic to it's end. But I believe there is a useful intent of the committee to prevent the float ing of these grants upon how known mines. ard I should like to protect the inhabitants of the Territories agaInst that result and so far cheerfully ac- quiese iD the object of the committee. But, so far 20 mines are not known, | it seems to me it is according to public policy, the policy we have heretofore pursued, that when the Government wipes it's hands of these lands under 8 valid grant, it shall do so of all they contain, provided there are no mines known at tha. time.
 Mr. Edmunds. A single word. The Mariposa case to which my friend has referred does not sustain, 1 submit with great deference, the proposition that he advances. The MaripOsa case mere lv went upon the question as to wheth- CT the claim to the MaripOsa land un- der 9 grant from the Mexican or Span ish governmental do not remember which-was a valid claim. IL was ob- iected to the validity of that grant of the land that 1t was afterward discOv- cred that there were mines in it and that by the laws of Spain grant of land did not carry mines. What did the court say? They did not say that d grant of land did not carry the mines ; but they did say that if there was a grant Of land, the fact of its etterward being discovered that there were mines in 1t did not lnvalldate the grant or the land. So say we. We say you shall have your land just according to the laws of Mexico and SpaIn and if your grant did carry the mine you shall have the mine; if 1t did not carry the mine you shall not have the mine. That is all there k tO that
 But the policy which my friend IS | in favor of, we are in favor of. We only differ as 10 methods. These great i Territories of Arizona and New Mex
 leo are m the largest part aria. They are not susceptible of agricultural m
 provement te any great degree. These great land grants that are now claim | ed, private land claims and grants | from Mexico and Spain, are brought UT and are pressed by the hundred and
 the thousand, and in nine cases in ten, ! perhaps in nineiy-niue in one hundred