Struggles Between Land Ownership and Mining Rights in Historic California

 

Square Metre versus Ounce of Gold: Struggles Between Land Ownership and Mining Rights in Historic California

The back-and-forth seemingly inherent between agriculture and mining is as old as civilization itself, each pulling with equal might on either side of the teetering balance of progress. On one side, the tillers of our nourishing soil, bonafide sustainers of civilizations, and on the other, the miners who brave the deep, dark bowels of the Earth, surreptitiously drawing up her precious cargo to adorn our societies with a gleaming series of baubles and bonds. In a sense, the seeds of this dynamic co-yielding and co-fending for the Earth's unrivaled bounty were duly sewn in the mid-19th century California.

The laws of the time painted a clear picture of how significantly these two aspects of progress butted heads. A legal edict titled "Settlement, under her laws regulating" discloses a multitude of struggles and differential policies directed at the settlement of lands for agriculture and mining purposes in the area. The document underscores how, in their wisdom, the powers of the time prioritized the prospect of gold against the taming of the wild landscapes for farming.

Let's crunch down the substantial fact within the text: "The Government of the United States will issue no patent to a pre-emption claimant upon mineral lands, who claims the same for agricultural purposes." This statement reveals the amplitude of the situation. Put simply, miners had dibs. Agriculture was summarily dismissed from areas where the glittering kernels of gold could be found.

This provocative declaration served as the genesis of a dance that continued for many years. Both the Federal and State Governments consistently swayed towards safeguarding the rights of miners, implementing a series of legislation aimed at preserving the precious metal claimants' occupations. It appears that the plow and oxen had decidedly less clout when juxtaposed with the gold pan and sieve.

Another example from the historical document reads: "The act of April 13th, 1850, passed 'for the better regulation of the mines, and the government of foreign miners,' seems to give, by necessary implication, whatever right the State might have in the mineral in the soil, and the right to mine, to all native or natural born citizens of the United States, who may wish to toil in the gold placers." Swinging the doors wide open for U.S. citizens to partake in the lucrative venture, the State showed the lengths of its favor for mining.

Meanwhile, farmers attempting to claim lands rich in metallic treasures found themselves at the receiving end of the legal stick. For them, even if they had staked the land before mining laws were legislated, earlier possession held no water. Their presence on mineral-rich lands was uniformly viewed as unwelcome intrusion, while miners were hailed as innovators and early adopters of lawful and honorable pursuits.

These rulings, drawn from the freshly minted wisdom of the 19th-century westward expansion, had far-reaching implications. Not only did they shape California's relationship with mining and agriculture, but they also crafted a broader narrative around property rights, resource ownership, and their intertwining with the grander notion of governmental priorities and policies.

However, this hard stance in favor of mining can appear at odds with the acknowledgment of agriculture's pivotal role in early American society. Indeed, the same document states: "In the new agricultural States, it was the policy of the government. as well as of the people, that the large and prolific waste lands should be early settled, cleared, and brought into a state for its cultivation."

What does this dichotomy tell us about the intersection of agricultural and mineral rights in American history? It reveals that the intertwined narratives of progress, resource ownership, sustainability, and economy have defined this nation's trajectory. The laws of the past have shaped our reality today, affecting our approach to land use, agriculture, mining, and resource extraction.

It offers a rare glimpse into the minds of our forebears, rendering a sense of their values and priorities, foreshadowing the America we know today. Understanding the motivations and challenges faced in those early years enables us to better navigate the complex tangle of societal, economic, and environmental issues we grapple with today.

Today, as we hurdle down the tracks of progress, the heartening hum of industry in our ears, a glance back at our past grants essential wisdom. As we continue to contend with the age-old balancing act between our insatiable demand for resources and the preservation and sustainable use of our fertile swathes of land, grappling with the persistent dance between mining and agriculture, the echoes from California's golden past serve as a valuable compass.

**Citation**:
- Trinity Journal, [settlement, under her laws regulating, 1855-03-17]
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/


Original Article:

the occupation of the public lands, all lands upon which mines may exist. The Government of the United States will issue no patent to a pre-emption claimant upon mineral lands, who claims the same for agricultural purposes. The plaintiff below has then acquired no right to his settlement from the General Government. The State of California having an Undoubted right to pass laws regulating the manner of defending and possessing the public lands within her borders, by virtue of her police powers, if she has no higher right, has proceeded to define what lands may be possessed lor agricultural purposes, in the act of April 11th, 1850, and the act of April 20th, 1850. (See Compiled Laws, 896). And by the provisions of these laws, she expressly excepts from their operation, and refuses to protect, any location upon lands containing any of the precious metals. The act of April 13th, 1850, passed “ for the better regulation of the mines, and the government of foreign miners,” seems to give, by necessary implicattion, whatever right the State might have in the mineral in the soil, and the right to mine, to all native or natural born citizens of the United 8tates, who may wish to toil in the gold placers. The act of 1851, regulating proceedings in civil cases—section 621 defining “ that in actions respecting mining claims, proof shall be admitted of the customs, usages or regulations established or ill force at the ‘ bar’ or ‘diggings' embracing such claim”—would seem to imply a permis/ion upon the part of the State to the miner, to seek wherever he chose in the gold bearing districts for the precious metals, and would seem to extend to him whatever right she might have to the mineral when found. But the inquiry would naturally arise here, as to what right the plaintiff can have in maintaining possession of the farm he claims, situate upon mining lands, to the exclusion of the miners, whilst he is in good faith searching for gold. The policy of the General and State Governments has been to reserve these lands from settlement for agricultural purposes. All the legislation of both Governments bearing upon this question, denies the claim of the settler for agricultural purposes upon mineral lands, and instead of denying to the miner the privilege of extracting gold wherever found, tlie one by its tacit permission, and the other In the uniform tendency and implication of its laws, has given him that privilege, end allowed him to define and regulate his location in the mines, by the local customs and laws prevailing at the place where he is following his mining avocation. It has been contended in this cause, that the location of tlie plaintiff for agricultural purposes upon the lands in dispute, had taken place prior to any legislation upon the subject of mining lands, and that, therefore, these laws, passed with reference to the business of mining, can have no effect in denying the right to his possession, because they would be retroactive in their operation, I cannot perceive the force of this objection. The plaintiff never had, from the time of his location, any right, derived from either Government, to the possession of mineral lands enclosed by him, to the exclusion of miners who were, in good faith, proceeding to ex tract the gold from the earth. The plaintiff is in possession without showing a right of property; and relies upon his mere possession, by buildings and enclosures, for his right to recover in this action. A bare prior possession of agricultural lands, which were public lands, has been held sufficient in some of the new States and Territories of the Union to sustain ejectment as against a person invading that possession. The wants and interests of a country have always had their due weight upon courts in applying principles of law w hich should shape its condition, and rules must be relaxed, the enforcement of which would be entirely unsuited to the interests of the people they are to govern. In the new agricultural States, it was the policy of the government. as well as of the people, that the large and prolific waste lands should be early settled, cleared, and brought into a state for its cultivation. The actual settler upon those lands over much of the territory of the Union, was allowed the right of pre-emption, and the government recognized in him, by virtue of his settlement, a species of property in the public lands. It was necessary lor tlie encouragement of actual settlers, that without legal title to their property, and without actual en closures, they should be able to remove any person entering upon lands claimed by them. But, how is it with the case before us? The plaintiff settles upon and claims mineral lands for purposes of agriculture, to the exelusion of miners, against the policy of both the General and State Governments, without right, and claims protection in his possession merely because he was first upon the grounds; that he had fenced in a farm, and was occupied in the business of raising crops. The maxim of the law "quid prior est in tempore prior est in jure ,” cannot be applied in protection ot a person who settles upon lands reserved from settlement by the policy of the law, as against one entering for a purpose encouraged wherever mineral lands may be found. To sustain the action of ejectment in favor of a party relying upon mere prior possession, the defendant in the action is treated as an intruder and wrong-doer who invades without right in the premises. The defendants below were in the exercise of a peaceable and lawful calling, ami in their search for gold in the progress of their works, they discovered that the plaintiff had enclosed ground in a mining district, which they believed to be valuable for gold mining purposes, and upon which they entered for the purpose ot carrying on their business of extracting gold This was not (in a mining district) the act of intruders or wrong-doers, but the act of persons following a lawful and honorable pursuit upon ground reserved to such purposes by both the policy and laws of this State, and the evident policy of the general government of the United States. If the doctrine were otherwise, it is plain to perceive that persons without any right but that of possession, could, under the pretence of agriculture, invade the mineral districts of the State, and swallow up the entire mineral wealth, by settlements upon 160 acre tracts of land. It would be using the law to a very bad purpose, if we should allow a person. who has no evidence of title but his improvements, and no right but that of the naked possession he has usurped, to destroy, for his own benefit, the business of a neighbor i e