Court Opinion

ID: 9416683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:52:41.547576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.106429
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CATRON,
dissenting: I am of the opinion that Castillero acquired an incipient right by the discovery of the mine, and the surface of the land lying above the mine to tl e extent that it was adjudged to him by the District Court.
I also think Castillero made registry of his discovery befoi < the proper tribunal according to the Mexican laws as they e. • isted in the Territory of California at the time the registry wifi made and notified to the public. That the Alcalde had jurisdiction 'as a judicial magistrate in the absence'and non-existence of any other authority in California to make the registry and give possession; and that this state of the law was virtually recognized by the Mining Junta at the city of Mexico, when Castillero applied to that tribunal for assistance in money, lands, and retorts, to assist him in working the mine. The request was promptly granted by the 'Junta, with two leagues of land to furnish fuel for evaporating the quicksilver; and this proposed grant, the President of Mexico sanctioned, referring the application. for the. grant of land to the Governor of the Territory, but which was never presented, and could not be,' owing, to the American war.
*210These officers of the Supreme Government were fully aware that no Mining Boards existed in California, nor any Courts of the First Instance; and that therefore the Court of the Alcalde was the tribunal exercising the powers of a Court of the First Instance. Such is the settled construction of the Alcalde’s power in California. Mena vs. Le Roy, 1 Cal. R., 220. The rule in Mexico was, that in the absence of Mining Deputies, the ordinance Judges might act, and did in fact act, both in registering the discoverer’s application and in giving him judicial possession of the-mine. So various witnesses prove, and among them Mr. Larkin, our consul at Monterey, at the time of this discovery.
I think it true, beyond any reasonable ground for doubt, that in other parts of Mexico, Alcaldes did act on applications such as that of Castillero, where gold or silver was discovered, and that many mining titles are held by virtue of registries and acts of possession transacted before Alcaldes, and recorded in the form of espedientes in their Courts, just as the evidence of Castillero’s was found'in Alcalde Pico’s office. Nor have I any doubt, whatever, that if the Mexican Government had continued in California, that the title to this mine would have been eon- ■ firmed to Castillero, .not Only promptly, but without dispute, concerning small and immaterial irregularities. That Government, in my judgment, would have recognized the discoverer’s equity, founded on the right of discovery. This discovery is free from doubt, nor is the fact of discovery disputed. So the Mexican officers from the President down, treated it when presented to them, and so the judges o'f the District Court held, when they confirmed the claim. Their judgment, and the reasons for it, we-are called on to review; and it is due to them to say, that, in a long judicial life, I have never had presented to me, a case so laboriously and thoroughly investigated in the lower Courts. With them this case has been the study for years. 'The claim, perhaps, covérs the most valuable mine in the world, and its title has been litigated at an expense and with a degree of labor and ability, rarely equalled, and never excelled within uiy experience.
I ha re examined the opinions of the judges who decided the *211cause in tbe District Court and tbe briefs of counsel, and have verified the arguments by the record on all material questions, so far as I thought them material, and my opinion is, that the law and the facts discussed by the District Court, and on which its judgment is founded, furnish reasons that cannot be answered, showing that the claim is valid. And I adopt the opinion and reasons preceding the judgment below as my opinion in the case here.
Judge Hoffman's individual opinion displays an astuteness and ■ a knowledge of the facts, and of the mining laws applying to the controversy, hardly to be excelled, and with which I fully con-. curj with the exception, that I think he was in error in maintaining that the President of Mexico granted the two leagues of land covering the mine. The President referred the request of Castillero'for the land to the Governor of California, to be proceeded on by him, according to the Act of 1824, and Regulations of 1828. This was not done by the Governor, because the United States troops expelled him and broke up the Mexican authorities exercising the granting power, before he had time to act.
It was obviously a matter of great anxiety with the Supreme •Government, that this quicksilver mine should be worked immediately, and as extensively as possible, because Europe had to be relied'on for a supply of quicksilver, without which the gold and silver mines of Mexico were comparatively worthless. This discovery of Castillero was, therefore, esteemed by the Mining Junta and the higher officers as of the greatest importance. So important was it- deemed, that our Government was officially notified by our Consul, Mr. Larkin, (acting nearest to the mine,) that the discovery had been made. The mine drew to its development a great amount of capital. Nearly a million of dollars has been expended in opening and bringing forth its resources The public have been benefitted many millions by the quicksilver furnished to those working the gold mines discovered in California, and . on bo’th sides of the Rocky Mountains. The public benefit, past and prospective, can na-rdly be over-estimated. So far from being the subject of reproach and severe critic'sm, the wealthy proprietors who have worked this mine *212with success, are entitled to our approbation, as they have undoubtedly been public benefactors. Truly, their object wag gain; but they have done that which poverty could not accomplish, and they have done that which the United States, as th¿ successful litigant, will, in all human probability, fail to do; that of being successful 'miners.
Much stress has been' laid on the fact, that James Alexander Eorbes proposed to his associates to forge a title to this mining property: Eorbes, apprehending that Castillero’s claim was not valid, because the proceeding to acquire a legal interest was irregular. But no step was taken to fabricate an apparent title nothing was done towards its accomplishment. The proposition died in its conception, and as a controlling circumstance in the case the fact is worthless.
1. That Castillero discovered the mine, is true beyond controversy.
2. That he registered the fact of discovery in the Alcalde's office, and that it was made notorious, is, I think, true. It was officially communicated to the Mexican Congress by Secretary of Interior Relations; that it was prominently notorious in California ; was officially communicated to our Government, and was published in the newspapers of t,>e Sandwich Islands.
3. Nor is it open to any dispute, as it seems to me, that Castillero’s right, as a discoverer, was recognized by the Supreme Government of Mexico, as a valid and highly meritorious claim.
4. The mine was never denounced by any one for irregularity in the proceeding to perfect the title to it, nor for abandoning the possession.
In this condition the claim stood when we acquired the country; and we are bound by the treaty to protect all just private interests in lands in the territory acquired by it. I, there fore, think the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed