Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-03-02

mines-some say 200, COO people, but, if that
is exaggeration, there were. at least LOG, 900
souls. Fer two years no idea prevailed that
California was good for anything else than to
dig gold in. This Is important to remember,
for out of it grew certain customs and laws.
Secretary of the Interior Ewing, in Deem
ber 1919, reported to the President that the
population of California was rapidly increas-
ing, adventures being attracted there, and
that soon a settled state of society must re-
suit, and that the mines and outcome of gold
will encourage industrial workshops and the
building Of machinery; tast it has already
considerable commerce, which Will result,
probably. in opening the ports of Chinafor the
gold Of California, and this, coupled with the
agriculture of Oregon, will build up great
commerce ON the Pacific coast. In an the
report there is no reference to any agriculture
in California. Geld, gold, all gold, only gold
Mr.. Wilson considered what might have been
the condition of the country now had gold
not have been discovered. Surely the immi.
grafton would have been small and slow, and
the farmer would have been among the last
to come. The condition of the Spanish
grants would have been different. But the
gold brought in the adventurer, and the sgri-
cuIturists followed, ard the Mexican was
crowded out, and there was a very evident
exempli6cation of the survival of the fittest.
and now it is rare to find Spanish grant held
by o Mexican owner. II was the desire for
the sudden acquisition of wealth by digging
for gold tl.as peopled the State. Where would
SACRAMENTO
Have been to-day but for the discovery of
gold. We would have had no Sacramento
here, and probably none here now would
have been here in that case. Indeed, this
would probably have been still within terri
torial form of government, and if the gold of
California had not have come as it did, it is
startling to think what might have been the
outcome of the rebellion and whether we
could ever have entered on payment of the
national debt. When we acquired California
the same municipal laws prevailed as had
heretofore. The laws Of a conquered territory
regarding property prevail until the sovereign
mobiles them. authorities cited BY Mex.
lean law everything WAS subordinated to min
ing; the mines belong TO the King any citi
zen could point cut mining ground, denounce
it and work it for his own profit. But this
civil law was always susceptible to the modi-
fications Ct
CUSTOM AND USAGE.
AS early as March, 1850, question arose
as to custom and usage under Mexican sys-
tenn. The case was Won Schmidt We. Hunt
ington Il Cal. Reps) Tne Court held that
by custom and usage, running from 1910, the
law had passed in desuetude and become
obsolete. There may be custom without
law, contrary to law. OF according to law Is
Cal, 50 Cal, Cal, 453, cited). Custom and
usage became a law, though of recent date Il
Cal, 2 Peters, 40; 10 Cal AT, 5 Cal, 46S,
. Wheaton, 5S5) On corresponding and
supporting propositions, other authorities
were cited. Those who came to California on
the discovery of gold, set up customs and
rules necessary to the mining of gold, and
exercised in The highest degree the right of
self-government. These laws grew out Of the
necessities of the times. and they became
laws by virtue of established legal principles,
though the pioneers supposed they were
making laws only TO themselves and for the
local preservation OF life and property. The
Supreme Court OF the United States compile
mented them fer the manner in which they
SO acted (citine) So, too, it was recognized
by the Supreme Court Of the State in 1855
(reading from ) Cal, 146) TIE holding
being then unrestrsined, control has been
given up of the mineral regions to the local
laws and customs thereof, and have given the
right to direct the streams, etc. The Gus
toms and Tusages under the Mexican laws
became the laws of the country until the
adoption of the common law in 1850 Now
comes the question as to the effect of that
adoption.
At $50 P. NJ. the Court adjourned until
$3.50 NJ to d4Y,