The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-02-10
RIGHTS OF THE STATE
10 Land Sold for Other Purposes ihan
Mining or Oil Boring.
THE TEXT OF THE OPINION RENDERED
nv Assistant Attorney General John
in the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. IL In
cluded Under Term of Mineral.

Austin, Texas, February s.--Thc fol-
lowing Is the text Of Acting Attorney
General Johns opinion to tho governor
with regard to the reservation OF min
erals, oils, etc. on school lands
iIon Jencph d. Sayes. Governor OF
Texas. Austin, Texas
Attorney Generals Office, state OF
Texas, Austin, February s, 1eol.--Dear
sir: Acknowledging receipt oi yong
favor of January 81, which is as follows:
II have to request that you at once
enter upon an examination Of exis ans
law respecting the sale Of lands oelons-
ing TO the State, or to the common free
school fund, or to any OF the ineMtulons
of the. State, or 10 the Tree scnool luuu'
M to the Institutions, all minerals, Gays.
oils, and other deposits on lands that may
have been sold either as grazing or agri-
cultural, lands, Your immediate attention
TO this matter is desired"
/ beg to gay that to give an intelligent
answer to tho came requires review OF
The entire land laws of this state and
an investigation OF the law Of the re
public OF Texas, OF the State Of Coahuila
and Texas and OF the Republic Of Mex
ico and of the Kingdom OF Spain, from
whieh we derived our land system.
This statement is made al an apology
for the length OF time have taken IN
terminating an answer; and also ior tue
length OF the answer.
The scope of the investigation involves
SO many vexed problems, that can be
construed either for or against the right
of the state. that the absence OF judicial
determination Just what construction Is
to be relied upon is in any event, ques-
iioDablc The opinion rendered Is the
result OF an extensive investigation made
by this entire department.
For the sake OF convenience have d.
vlded them under the following sub
heads stating the questions which OF
necessity arige and tho conclusions
havn come to in reference to the same.
FIRST.
What were the laws of Spain and Mex
leo as to the reservation OF minerals on
lands, tho title TO which was granted
by these eovereigns to private owners
md VI q grant reserved the minerals, VIC
this reservation continued in force un!er
the laws of the state and the Republic
of Texas?
The earliest law we find controlling
the granting Of lands by the kingdom oil
Spain, IN found under a compilation OF
the Spanish DEGREES. published In 1906
See Rl1HwelPs Spanish and McXic~r
Lay. page l12) This was u degree .,
the Spanish king, In which he speoilcai'
~ declares that "all minerals OF gold
silver. lead and every other minera
whatsoever In our realm belongs to US
therefore no one shall presume to worl
them without our special license Of
command
In Halls Mexican Law. section 1876,
quote the following excerpt
IAN mines are the property OF the SOW
eregn---so 1t Is now considered in Mex
ico--.out under the control OF the SOY
ka~lx t.tn
situated
That it was the law, both OF Spain an
Mexico to reserve In the sovereign n
mines aud minerals upon lands granite
20 private individuals Is not without ~
dcial determination in this country. TIL
eupgeme court of California in the cas-
Of Moore VS.. Shaw III Cal, 1897, opini.
by Chief Justice Fielde, declares sue
10 be the laws of Mexico. The oqinio
IS exhaustive and reviews the laws bat
of Spain and Mexico, in reference to tn
reservation of minerals This justic
oItos authorities in this opinIon Nhic
are not accessible to the writer, II
CONCLUDES, however. that:
Minerals thus vested under the Spar
ish monarchy. in the crown and aft'
the separation OF Mexico, In the nato
did net pass as we have stated, by q
ordinary grant of land without an o
press release Of the same. Such gran
transferred only an interest In the SO
distinct from that of the minerals IT
interest in the minerals was convey,
through the operation of the mining ord
nances OF registration, OF discovery or
proceedings upon announcement when {
mines once discovered and registered h
been abandoned or forfeited"
In fact. all OF the authorities concl
svely assert that under the Spanish o
Mexican law grant OF land to an int
vidaial reserved all mines and minera
unless there was an express grant as
this particular, made OF the san
(See Biddlc Boggs VS., MERGED Mining c
IA Cal. 30S: Yates on Mining Claims a
Water Rights, page Is; Rockwell's Spa
ish and Mexican Laws, page All: opnl
of the attorney general OF the Unit
States volume Z, page $685. Fremont
Flower. IL Cal. 200; Hicks VS.. Bell.
Csl.. 100: Stokes VS.. Barrett. S Ca
bege -.
II is therefore clearly established th
81 was the settled law OF the Repub
Of Mexico. as a continuation of the 81