The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 30, July 1926 - April, 1927 Page: 54
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
the past three years." According to the Bulletin not a single
newspaper was opposed to the act.62 In his message of 1866
Governor Low said: "The apprehension of miners in regard to
unwise and unfriendly legislation by Congress touching the min-
eral lands has been allayed by the passage of just and generous
laws which guarantee the actual possession to those on whom the
prosperity of the state so largely depends."3
The Act of July 26, 1866, pertained only to vein mines. No
provision was made to acquire title to placer mines. The com-
mittee in Congress believed that since the placers were becoming
exhausted, there was no need to legislate for them. The Act of
July 9, 1870, provided also for the placer mines, ordering the
sale of these mines at $2.50 an acre. It limited the extent of
one location by an individual or an association to one hundred
and sixty acres. In other respects the placer locations were to
conform to local rules and regulations. The Act of May 10,
1872,64 "to promote the development of the mining resources of
the United States," in general reaffirmed the policy outlined in
the former two acts, especially with regard to exploration and
purchase of the mineral lands.
Summary. The question of the control and disposition of the
mineral lands was an agitating subject in the state, and to some
extent in Washington, for about eighteen years. During this
period the general government made several attempts to legis-
late for the mines, but it lacked the necessary information and
courage to work out a definite policy. As a result the admin-
istration floundered from one plan to another: at one time it
suggested the system of leasing; at another time, it suggested
selling the lands in small parcels; and when California protested
against either system, it recommended not to interfere at all with
the mines. It was, of course, much easier to follow the policy
of "masterly inactivity" than to brave the opposition of California.
And thus in spite of some protest against the failure of the gov-
ernment to assert its rights to the mines, the government treasury
did not derive any revenue of the hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of gold extracted during this period from the Pacific coast
"2Sacramento Union, June 23, 1866; Bulletin, August 8, 1866.
3Cal. Sen. Jour., 1867-1868, 53.
"4United States Statutes at Large, XVI, 217-218; XVII, 91-96.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 30, July 1926 - April, 1927, periodical, 1926; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth117142/m1/62/: accessed July 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.