OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 705 eral laxness in the administration of the leasing law by Thomas' successor, Thomas Legate, miners and smelters alike became disenchanted. Wright estimates that smelters were in arrears in rentals in the amount of 124,736 pounds of lead in 1830, 255,651 pounds in 1832, and 493,313 pounds in 1835.30 Rentals were collected for only one year during the period 1836-40, and that was only a nominal amount. Actual production of lead was more than four times the amount reported to the War Department. During this period, lead production soared to an estimated 89 million pounds. By 1833, the miners too began to resent the requirement of a digging license, and between 1833 and 1835 only about 145 miners took out permits. After 1836, they apparently mined in complete disregard of the leasing law. Legate himself openly opposed the leasing system throughout his tenure, brazenly advocating outright sale of the mines. The fatal blow to government ownership of the mines came when Congress in 1834 created a new land office for the western half of the Wisconsin Territory. Although the President himself directed that mineral lands be reserved from entry, at least three-fourths of the public mineral lands in this area (Illinois was not included, of course) passed into private ownership in the 6 years or so which followed. There seems little doubt but that John Sheldon, register of the land office, was guilty of gross fraud in permitting both local and eastern speculators to grab valuable mineral properties. This was accomplished with the acquiescence of the superintendent of the mines (Legate) who himself was guilty of speculating in mineral land. Although it is true that the land office district included as much as 9 million acres of land and although mineralogical competence had not advanced at this time to the point where mineral lands could be easily segregated, '"Wright, .supra note 14 at 39. still the evidence is overwhelming that neither Sheldon nor Legate made any serious effort to stop the demise of the leasing system. By 1840, when public ownership was virtually a thing of the past, the miners themselves discovered that they were no better off under private ownership. Private landowners who leased their lands for mining increased royalties from 6 percent to as much as 33% percent. The miners were not adequately represented in the territorial legislature which, controlled as it was by the large landowners, repeatedly memorialized Congress to dispose of the entire area in the interest of rapid settlement. This does not necessarily mean that the majority of the people favored public ownership, although it is quite dear that the miners themselves did. Changes in population groups during the 1830's produced an electorate more interested in agriculture than mining. During the later years of the leasing system, two cases from the Upper Mississippi mines came before the Supreme Court. In the first, United States x>. (iratiot,31 the defendants were sued on a penal bond executed as part of a smelter's license from the government. Thomas Hart Benton, long opposed to leasing in Missouri, argued for the defendants that Congress had no constitutional power to authorize leasing of mineral lands, and that, in any event, the smelter's license was not a "lease" within the meaning of the 1807 Act. The court unanimously held that the phrase "power to dispose of" in the property clause of the Federal Constitution confers upon Congress the authority to lease as well as to sell the public lands. Indeed, the whole foundation of territorial government was said to rest upon the assumption that congressional power over the public domain was in fact unlimited. The 1807 Act was, therefore, upheld. The Court also held (1) that the smelter's license was a "lease" ai 14 Peters (U.S.) 526 (1840). |