Year: 1860




ception !' the San Francisco 7ciegran
has an article from which We make the
following extract |, may we'll he asked
whether an honest decision in Cali'oruia !.
such rarity that the State should 30 into
| mysteries on account thereof Where j.
the Archy decision, and where is a former
decision Of the Supreme Court in the case
of Blddic Duggs VS.. the Ncycei Vii in.
1 company. the same entitled case as the one
recently decided? In this last case the
Judges rendering the decision, Burnett and
ieey, Were both good Democrats, and when
they ruled Frcmont's interests out of Court
in January 1883, they were alike indorsed
by tue Democratic press of the State and
their G nclusions greeted as sound law.
But to our extract


One would think So certainly, after read
Ing the comments of some Of our cotempo-
ram :. on the decision recently made by the
Supreme Court in the Fremont case They
take great pains to display the fact that the
Judges Of the Supreme Courts are all Demo
erats, that the successful litigan,, Fremont.
lsa Republican, bitter political opponent
and that it would have been easy for the
Judges, if they were guided by partisan
malice, to have decided against him. The
Democratic papers claim such degree OF
merit for the apparent impartial action Of
Democratic Judges that We are almost led
to believe that honesty is scarce article in
the Democratic ranks, that never before
was Democratic officer known to have
acted mpariially, and that, having sin.
gle instance of Democratic honesty, the or
gans If that party are determined to make
the most Of it. Such, We say, would
seem to be tho condition of affairs, judg-
ing from the exaggerated hyperbole We
find in the National and Herald in rela-
ton to the implied honest action Of Judges
elevated to the bench by Democratic votes.
We should think the Judges would net
feel greatly elated by the doubtful ccmpli-
pliments bestowed upon them by their po-
Gtical friends These compliments imply
belief entertained ut sometime the judy
es could be 50 dishonest as to allow partisan
or other considerations to influence them in
their decisions, and that this belief was en-
tertained to certain degree by those pa
pers and men who assisted them to office.
Furthermore, the exaggerated praises of
these impartial actions of the Judges imply
but poor respect for the morality aud in-
tegrty of the Courts. They imply that
not only in the Democratic party, but in
the community at large that venality, cor
ruption and rascality are the rule, and that
honesty and impartiality are the exceptions.


The Administration papers having taken
particular pains to set forth the fact that
Democratic Judges decided in favor of Ere.
mont's rights in the opinion just now rem
dered, We ask them to reconcile the princi
Piles of law there promul gated with those %
other Democratic Judges as given in 1s5S
and whom they alike hold up as models o
legal learning and Judicial incorrup,lbility
At the January term of the Supreme Cour
in that year, Justice Burnett said:


The second and last position to be exam
ined is, whether the defendant has the rIgii
to extract the gold, while the title ir fc,
simple of the land is in Colonel Fremont


The learned counsel for the plaintiff in
sist that, conccding the title to the minera
to be in the State, this fact cannot help tn
defendant If this ground be correct, con
ceding the ownership to be in the State,
must be equally correct if the ownersh


he iu the United States. They insist tia
a party has no right to enter upon the Ian
of another in search for gold, because ,h
gold belongs to third party not eve
under a general license from the owner t
b the gold Ii is conceded that the State, a
the owner. night protect the party license
against trespasser in such case b.
We cannot perceive the force Of this reason
ing. The right to the gold carries with
the right to search aud dig, as necessar
incidents, as was held in the case of Plou
den. The ownership Of the mineral woul
o be of no value without the right to extrat
it. And this right in the Government coul
only be exercised through its agents. I'll
!. owner of the gold, whether natural or a


tiicial person, could do that by agent th'
st could be done by the principal. The rigl


to grant license TO another is not lnJur


Gus to the owner Of the land. but beneiici


to the owner of the mineral OF cours


the party licensed could do no more tha


the proprietor of the gold could do. III


only remaining inquiry is whether the d


fendant, under the circumstances, has
s. cense from the United States This que
Y ton was very fully considered by this Cou


in the case Of the Merced Mining Comp


nv VS.. j. c. Fremont and others, decid,
ne at the last April term In that case, '
at said


be when we consider the current and Il
'ir spirit of the legislation of both Goyernmen


taken in connection with the history a


the known circumstances of the count'
, the conclusion is irresistible that the min
y are occupied and worked with the clear
:! sent and encouragement Of both Cover


ments And while the terms of this
in cense and the relation which the miner 81
- tains to the superior proprietor may not


expressly laid down, and the duration
the estate not clearly designated by a
Y. positive law, and We may not, f,r the r.


sons. be able to give any exact definition


the precise nature of the right, Yet c


thing is well understood and indispu;ab


They are there BY the clear license of b
,4s Governments, and have such title as v