OCR Text |
Show 718 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT mining law (a la Comstock), he was openly scoffed at by Stewart and Conness. The Williams amendment,131 which would have continued the laissez-faire policy of the past, was defeated by a vote of 21-10 (18 members absent) .132 By the vote, the Senate had effectively committed itself to a new mineral policy, and the only feasible plan seemed to be the policy of free exploration with the right of preemption which was advocated by Stewart. The bill, as amended by the Committee on Mines and Mining, was then passed, and, on Stewart's motion, its title was amended to read: "A bill to legalize the occupation of the mineral lands and to extend the right of preemption thereto."133 As amended, it had the support of all members of the Senate Committee on Mines and Mining, half of the Committee on Public Lands, and all but one of the members of the Committee on Finance. S. 257 had a short life in the House. George W. Julian, Chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands, had the bill referred to his committee.134 From the duties of the two committees, it would seem that it might have been more appropriately referred to the Committee on Mines and Mining.135 There seemed to be little doubt at this point that the bill would die under Julian's control since he was extraordinarily jealous of his own proposal. It was at this time that the western bloc in Congress conceived a most imaginative plan of legislative maneuvering. It was discovered that earlier in March 1866, Representative Higby of California had introduced a bill, H.R. 365,136 designed to authorize a right-of-way over public lands in m Id. at 3233. 132 Id. at 3453. 133 Id. at 3454. 134 Id. at 3548. 135 The duties of the respective committees are stated in Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 83-84, 3300 (1866). 136 Id. at 1259. California to ditch and canal owners. Apparently by mistake, it was referred to the House Committee on Public Lands. This, when pointed out, was corrected, and the House then referred the bill to the Committee on Mines and Mining.137 As it later turned out, this was a crucial move. When the bill was reported out of the House committee it was passed by the House. On the same day it was taken to the Senate and referred to its Committee on Public Lands, of which Stewart was a member. On July 22, 1866, it was reported back with an amendment which preserved the title but eliminated in toto the original provisions.138 Substituted for the contents of H.R. 365 was S. 257 which had passed 3 weeks earlier in the Senate but was now languishing in Julian's House Committee on Public Lands. When H.R. 365 went back to the House, it bore no resemblance to the former bill except, for the name, i.e., a grant of a right-of-way to ditch and canal owners. Since the original H.R. 365 had come from the House Committee on Mines and Mining, the amended Senate version would be referred to the same committee in routine fashion. For Julian's committee-Public Lands-to acquire the bill, a majority vote would have been necessary, something Julian apparently could not muster up. When Julian's motion to refer H.R. 365 to his own committee was finally put to a vote he lost so resoundingly that they did not bother to record the "nays."139 Apparently he had 17 out of 110 possible votes. The final vote on the Senate amendment to H.R. 365 went through smoothly, although it might be observed that there were almost as many Senators absent as there were those who voted favorably. The bill-a lode mining law-became law on July 26, 1866, under the amazing title: "An 137 Id. at 1332. 138 Id. at 3951. 139 Id. at 4050-54. |