OCR Text |
Show HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT from the Committee on Public Lands (of which Mr. Julian was chairman), the Congressman delivered a most eloquent defense of his plan.112 Essentially it was to survey and subdivide mineral lands into small tracts, after which the lots would be sold at a public auction. Minimum prices would be fixed depending upon the size, locality, and mineral value of the land. Mining claimants in possession were given a right to purchase their claims at minimum prices, thereby avoiding the necessity of competing with "rich capitalists." Although it was regarded primarily as a revenue measure, Julian's deep concern was always with orderly settlement of the public domain. He felt that his plan would tend to promote and encourage permanent settlements as distinguished from the tentative community of the nomadic miner. Although Julian was an ardent foe of the land speculator, the anti-monopoly provisions of the bill seemed rather loose. He also acknowledged that there would be some difficulty in arriving at a fair minimum price. Failing in the 38th Congress to set the bill apart for consideration as a special order,113 he reintroduced it soon after the commencement of the 39th Congress.114 His attempts to secure serious consideration of the bill were unsuccessful. The counterpart of Julian's bill was introduced in the Senate by John Sherman of Ohio.115 Both bills were vigorously opposed by the California delegation, Senator Conness contending that the bill, if enacted into law, would bring "inextricable confusion" and would cause a "revolution in the mining country."11(i Sherman, like Conness, also later changed his mind. 112 Id. at 684-87. 113 Id. at 795. 114 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 49 (1865) . 115 Id. at 7. 116 Id. at 361. The Year of Decision: 1866 117 The mining interests in the West were well represented in Congress for some time before the enactment of the 18(>r> Act by Senator William Stewart of Nevada. Stewart's fame as a mining lawyer is legendary.11 N He once cross-examined a witness, whose veracity was questionable, with a derringer. In the celebrated battle over whether the Comstock was one ledge or many he opposed David S. Terry, who was a former Justice of the California Supreme Court and who, by all accounts, was no slouch with the gun either.11" The jury divided. Stewart's political success was due in large part to the fact that he was bright, articulate, and painstakingly well prepared. Shortly after his credentials were accepted by the Senate, he advocated the creation of a new committee on mines and mining interests. After several attempts to secure consideration of his resolution, another, introduced by Senator Anthony f Rhode Island, was adopted.120 It created the Committee on Mines and Mining, more appropriately named than was Stewart's. Membership included Stewart and Conness of California as well as five others who appear to have been largely pro-mining. A similar committee was created in the House.121 advantage of an opportunity to Hail away Stewart also advocated larger appropriations for investigating the extent of mineral resources in the West,122 and soon took 117 With apologies to the late Bernard DeVoto who thought it was 20 years earlier in his charming book, The Year of Decision 1846 (1942) . ""These and other tales are recounted in Gree-ver, The Bonanza West: The Story of the Wf.st-ern Mining Rushes 99, 101 (1963) . Less modest accounts will be found in his autobiography. Rkmi- NISCENSF.S OF SENATOR WlI.l.IAM M. STEWART (1908) . 119 Although Terry was killed by a United States Marshal while committing an assault on Justice Field, his more successful gun feats are described in Swisher, Life of Stephen J. Field 321-61 (1930) . 12"Con(;. Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess., 1429 (1865) . 121Conc;. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 83, 114 (1865) . |