OCR Text |
Show 714 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT tion primarily to the question of whether, in view of the fact that the amendment applied only to two states (California and Oregon), it should be incorporated in the homestead law which was intended to have general application throughout the country. With no support from the East and very little from the South, the Gwin amendment suffered a resounding defeat of 33-9 on the issue of germaneness.100 The Homestead Act was eventually passed over President Buchanan's veto.101 The Civil War Years. Four unimportant bills relating to the mineral question were summarily disposed of during the early years of the Civil War.102 A different mood, however, fell over the 38th Congress in the early part of 1864. It was suggested that studies be made to determine how the mines might be most effectively exploited.103 Revenue was desperately needed to pay the debts of the war, and in the debates during these years the revenue question was considered in several different contexts, each of which will be reviewed here briefly: (1) taxation of the production of gold; (2) Presidential authorization to seize the gold mines; (3) retention of title by the government with freedom of exploration; and (4) sale of the mineral lands in small sections at public auction. The Senate debated rather extensively the possibility of taxing either the gross or net production from the mines, as well as a transportation tax.104 Opponents of the tax measures emphasized the plight of the western miner: on the one hand was the insecurity of land titles resulting from congressional inaction, which in turn discour- '""Id. at 1795. 101 11 Stat. 392 (1862) . ""Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Scss., 13 (1861); Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 16 (1862); Id. at 91; Id. at 166. 103 Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Scss., 658-59 (1864) (Rep. Bennett of Colorado suggested that experienced miners be brought from Europe to work the gold and silver mines) . aged investment in expensive mining techniques; on the other hand, profits from the mines were said to be greatly exaggerated. Since the drama of the Comstock bonanza was in the process of being revealed to the country, the legislators from Nevada and California had some difficulty with their contention that the cost of production really exceeded the value of the ore produced. A relatively small tax on production was finally agreed upon,1""1 although it was never very effective as a revenue measure. Representative Renando Wood of New York introduced an unusual resolution in the House requesting that the President be authorized to take such measures as in his judgment might be necessary for the protection of the rights of the government in the mineral lands until proper legislation could be enacted by Congress.100 He felt that the Federal debt could almost be liquidated by appropriating and supervising the mining regions. After considerable discussion, the Wood resolution was laid on the table. Western Representatives pointed to the futile attempt of 1835 by Jefferson Davis and his troops to drive the miners from the lead fields.107 No doubt President Lincoln's writ to seize possession of the New Almaden mine in May 1803 was also in the minds of most Congressmen.10N The obvious difficulty with the Wood plan -the necessity of military seizure-perhaps prevented any serious attempt to incorporate it into legislation. On December 11, 1865, Representative Kasson of Iowa introduced a resolution which would have the House Committee on Public Lands inquire into the feasibility of reporting a bill which would regulate all mining on the public domain. After re- 104 Id. at 2556-58 (1864). m Id., App. at 223. "»Id. at 1695. m Id. at 1696. 108 The century-long history of the mine has recently been reviewed in Johnson, The New Alma- |