issued upon the confirmation of a Mexican grant, the existence of this
license was earnestly maintained by parties having no connection with
the government, nor any claim of title to the land. Its existence was,
however, repudiated by the court, and speaking for it in that case I
said: "There is gold in limited quantities scattered through large and
valuable districts, where the land is held in private proprietorship,
and under this pretended license the whole might be invaded, and, for
all useful purposes, destroyed, no matter how little remunerative the
product of the mining. The entry might be made at all seasons, whether
the land was under cultivation or not, and without reference to its
condition, whether covered with orchards, vineyards, gardens, or
otherwise. Under such a state of things, the proprietor would never be
secure in his possessions, and without security there would be little
development, for the incentive to improvement would be wanting. What
value would there be to a title in one man, with a right of invasion
in the whole world? And what property would the owner possess in
mineral land--the same being in fact to him poor and valueless just in
proportion to the actual richness and abundance of its products? There
is something shocking to all our ideas of the rights of property in
the proposition that one man may invade the possessions of another,
dig up his fields and gardens, cut down his timber, and occupy his
land, under the pretence that he has reason to believe there is gold
under the surface, or if existing, that he wishes to extract and
remove it."

At a later day the court took up the doctrine, that the precious
metals belonged to the State by virtue of her sovereignty, and
exploded it. The question arose in Moore vs. Smaw, reported in 17th
California, and in disposing of it, speaking for the court, I said:
"It is undoubtedly true that the United States held certain rights of