OCR Text |
Show 302 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT Another resolution stirred up much discussion.49 Resolved, That the Congress . . . be, and they are hereby respectfully, but earnest solicited, to give up to the people of California for a series of years, or so long as may be deemed expedient, all the revenue which may be derived from the renting, leasing, or otherwise authorized occupation of the gold placers. William M. Gwin, one of the most influential members of the convention and later elected United States Senator, proposed that the 500,000 acres to which the state would become entitled when it entered the Union be used "to select the best from the gold mines." If the proceeds were funded and the interest applied to the support of schools, California would have a noble endowment sufficient for the education of every child in the state, other members maintained.50 Still another resolution introduced into the Convention by a native Kentuckian predicted that it would be "practically impossible to survey and sell to private purchasers the public lands in California. That the comparatively small space valuable for mining purposes would inevitably fall into the hands of a few speculators, and the vast body of the mining population would either be compelled to cease their labors, or violate a right and a monopoly which would have neither force nor opinion to protect them. That the Congress of the United States is therefore most earnestly requested, should the General Government re- 49 J. Ross Browne, Report of the Debates in the Convention of California on the Formation of the State Constitution (Washington, 1850), p. 347. Douglas was wrong in saying there was no support for the Mc-Carver resolution. At a different time, when it was voted down without a division, Charles T. Botts, a Virginian and confirmed states' righter and defender of slavery, expressed his support but felt the convention was not the appropriate place in which to raise the question; it should be left to the legislature to request Congress for the cession of the lands. Also, W. M. Steuart, formerly of Maryland, was close to supporting cession. Ibid., pp. 347, 460. 50 Ibid., pp. 348 ff. tain its dominion over the said lands, to allow the free use and enjoyment of the same to all American citizens."81 In one of the last days of the convention an ordinance was adopted advancing a number of propositions to the Federal government concerning the public lands. The first called for the donation of one section of land in each quarter-township for schools, or four times the usual amount. Californians were aware of the action taken by Congress on August 14, 1848, reserving sections 16 and 36 for schools in Oregon and though this provision had not yet been extended to California there was reason to believe it would be.52 Gwin persuaded the convention to go farther and ask for four sections in every township, or one-ninth of the public lands. Not until many years later, when Arizona and New Mexico were asking for admission, was Congress to be as generous as California asked it to be. Other requests of California were: 72 sections for a university "together with further quantities as may be agreed upon by Congress," four sections for public buildings, 500,000 acres in addition to the 500,000 granted to the new states for internal improvements under the Act of 1841 "to defray the expenses of the State Government, and for other State purposes," 5 percent of the net proceeds from land sales for the encouragement of learning, all salt springs and one accompanying section for each spring. Had all that the convention asked for been received, plus the various grants given later, California would have received 14 percent of its total area. With the privilege later acquired of locating its claims wherever it found desirable tracts, the state might have obtained through wise selections the bulk of the good lands not in the private land claims.53 Pierre Soule read the past record of admissions incorrectly but he was right in saying 51 Ibid., pp. 430-31. 62 9 Stat. 330. 53 Browne, Report of the Debates, pp. 467-72. |