(4) Authorizing the condemnation by a miner of the right to conduct water across the land of another, and prescribing the procedure therefor; 1 (5) Requiring smelters and purchasers of ores and minerals to keep a record thereof in a book to be kept open for inspection by all persons, at all reasonable times, and prescribing penalty for failure so to do; 2 (6) Regulating employment of children in mines; 3 (7) Providing for condemnation by a miner of right of way for ditch or drain from mine across land of another, and prescribing the procedure therefor;1 (8) Imposing a penalty for digging and carrying away ore from land of another or of the state; 5 This is the extent of the mining legislation of any importance found in the states of this group. 21. Third group.-This group includes what may be generally called the precious-metal-bearing states and territories, and will be fully considered when dealing generally with the federal system, as by that system supplemental state and territorial legislation is permissive. This local legislation, where found, is essentially a part of the national law, as administered in the respective local jurisdictions. These state and territorial laws, to a large extent, supplant the local rules and customs, and in some of the states and territories are quite elaborate, embodying so many elements that they demand individual treatment in another portion of this work, after we shall have laid the foundation therefor. It may be of historical interest to note that it was at one time held in California that the mines belonged to San. & B. Stats. (1898), §§ 1650-1654. Id., §§ 1656-1657. 3 Id., § 1728a. Id., §§ 1379-1 to 1379-10 the state, in virtue of her sovereignty, and that the state alone could authorize them to be worked. The doctrine was asserted that the several states of the union, in virtue of their respective sovereignties, were entitled to the jura regalia which pertained to the king at common law.1 In support of this view, the rules followed in the states of New York and Pennsylvania were cited. Of course, in those two states the national government owned no lands. The primary ownership was in the states, and not in the general government. Therefore, the states were at liberty to determine for themselves the policy to be pursued with reference to their own property. This early California doctrine was subsequently repudiated.2 The legislature of Michigan in its early legislation upon this subject asserted the same regalian doctrine as first announced by the California courts, and such legislation still remains upon the Michigan statute-books.3 ? 22. Limit of state control after patent. It may not be out of place to here remark that the government of the United States does not concern itself with mining lands or the mining industry after it parts with the title. This title vests in the patentee absolutely, to the extent of the property granted. No royalties are reserved; nor is any governmental supervision (except, perhaps, in the isolated case of hydraulic mines in certain parts of California) attempted. Upon the issuance of the deed of the government, the mineral land becomes 1 Hicks v. Bell, 3 Cal. 219. Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199, 217, 79 Am. Dec. 123; Doran v. C. P. R. R., 24 Cal. 245. 3 See, ante, § 20. private property, subject to the same rules as other property in the state with reference to the transfer, devolution by descent, and all other incidents of private ownership prescribed by the laws of the state. The federal law remains, of course, a muniment of title; but beyond that it possesses no potential force. Its purpose has been accomplished, and, like a private vendor, the government loses all dominion over the thing granted. The state may not increase, diminish, nor impair the rights conveyed by a federal patent, but may, of course, and frequently does, exercise its police power and regulate the manner of working the mines, in the same manner that it might regulate any other industry. Briefly stated, property in mines, once vested absolutely in the individual, becomes subject to the same rules of law as other real property within the state. TITLE II. HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL POLICY AND LEGISLATION CONCERNING III. SECOND PERIOD: FROM THE DISCOVERY OF GOLD IN CALIFORNIA UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF THE LODE LAW OF 1866. IV. THIRD PERIOD: FROM THE PASSAGE OF THE LODE LAW OF 1866 TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE GENERAL LAW OF MAY 10, 1872. V. FOURTH PERIOD: FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAW OF 1872 TO THE PRESENT TIME. VL. THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. |