| OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 715 serving title perpetually to all minerals (except those which had been expressly disposed of by Congress), the resolution favored granting possessory rights to mine, with claimants being required to file returns with the United States assessor listing the amount of gold and silver produced together with the cost of production. On profits, the claimant would be required to den Quicksilver Mine (1963) . For the background of the famous controversy, it should be remembered that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo respected early private land grants of the Mexican Government if they were valid according to Mexican law. To untangle these early grants, Congress set up the California Land Commission. 9 Stat. 631 (1851) . The President was authorized to appoint a representative to protect the interests of the Federal government. A claimant was required to present his case to the commission with supporting documentary evidence. The board certified its decision to the United States District Attorney. Appeals might be taken to the Federal district court and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The success of the land commission has been disputed by historians. Especially critical is Caughey, California 363-78 (1940) . The commission worked in a highly emotionally charged atmosphere, frequently required to investigate difficult legal concepts of the Civil Law. The result was that a number of fraudulent claims were undoubtedly confirmed and perhaps as many valid ones rejected. See 1 American Law of Mining 31-34 (Martz ed. 1960). Edwin M. Stanton, later Secretary of War, was appointed in 1858 to act as special counsel to ferret out fraudulent claims. One of the most spectacular claims before the commission involved one Andres Castillero who in 1845 filed a denouncement (a formal claim to a mine) with the Mexican Government after having discovered the quicksilver mine on what was apparently privately owned property. Such a claim was valid under Mexican law if it were appropriately perfected. Eventually Castillero and his successors acquired a portion of the land (the Berreysea grant) on which the mine was located, but for years there were boundary-line squabbles with the adjoining owners known as the Larios. Castillero's legal position was that if the Berreysea and Larios properties were contiguous, the United States had no valid interest in the litigation. In a doubtful decision, the Supreme Court held that the Castillero mining claim had not been perfected as was required by Mexican law. United States v. Castillero, 2 Black (U.S.) 17 (1862). The intervention of the United States in what was essentially pay the established income tax.109 The resolution was apparently lost after being referred to the newly created Committee on Mines and Mining which was unimpressed with the solution. Although he later changed his position, Senator John Conness of California was, surprisingly enough, one of the first to introduce a bill for sale of the mineral lands.110 The consistent champion of subdivision and sale, however, was Representative George W. Julian of Indiana, who introduced his first bill on February 2, 1865.111 When the bill was reported back private litigation was fiercely criticized by Gregory Yale who had at one time been associated with the Castillero group. Yale, Mining Claims and Water Rights 332-36 (1867) . After the Castillero decision, President Lincoln in 1863 issued an order directing the military to oust Castillero from the mine on the ground that Castillero was a trespasser on land belonging to the United States. The only known copy of the order is printed in its entirety in Yale, supra, at 401-402. Lincoln's action caused considerable consternation among the miners who now believed that they too might be ousted from their claims. Although the order was later rescinded, the Castillero group felt obliged to sell out to the successors of the Larios for a nominal sum, considering the immense potential value of the mine. In another case, United States v. Fossat, 2 Wall (U.S.) 649 (1864), the Supreme Court eventually upheld the Larios (Fossat) claim, finding that the mine was entirely located on that property. The New Almaden litigation was undoubtedly the most famous case of the day, eclipsed only by the Civil War. The decision in the Castillero case is 371 pages long. The opening statement of the case in Fossat is sheer poetry. 2 Wall (U.S.) 649, 650 (1864) . The most celebrated legal orators of the day were involved at various stages and their fees were tremendous. Lurking in the background of the cases was the frightening rumor that the mine was actually owned by Great Britain. Johnson, supra, has documented these items as well as the later history of the mine which has been one of astonishing productivity. Apparently it is being operated to a limited extent at the present time. '""Cong. Globf., 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 20, 31 (1865). 11(1 Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 3360, 3544 (1864). 111 Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1864) . |
