SALE OF MINERAL LANDS. 445 



83,450,000, with the New York and London security for cap- 

 ital and interest, rather than the promise of $7,600,000, with 

 the danger of losing both capital and interest in California. It 

 is true, there is a natural drain of specie from countries where 

 labor is high, to those where labor is low, because the latter 

 import little and export much ; and of course, in this respect, 

 California must necessarily become tributary to China, the At- 

 lantic states, and Europe ; but, on the other hand, our relations 

 with the great centres of capital are so intimate, that we can 

 get all the money we want at California rates of interest if we 

 will but give perfect security for it, and pay the interest with- 

 out fail. It would be no lio-ht matter for us to owe -a hundred 

 millions, and pay California interest on it, to European capital- 

 ists ; but it would still be better than to do without the money, 

 without the improyements which it would build up, without 

 the population it would attract, and without the fixed wealth 

 it Avould create. 



Again, the present system exercises a most prejudicial effect 

 upon the finances of the state, and bears yery unequally upon 

 the citizens. The farming districts, where the inhabitants own 

 the land, pay heavy land taxes ; whereas mining claims pay no 

 taxes at all. The result is, that the taxation upon the men in 

 the yalleys is about three times as heayy as upon those in the 

 mountains. The miners generally haye no homes, and no fixed 

 property, and cannot be forced to pay taxes. Most of the 

 mining counties are deeply in debt, and many are going deeper 

 every year. The only way to equalize the taxation is to 

 sell the mineral lands, and compel the miner to pay a tax upon 

 his mine, as weU as the farmer on his farm. 



The proposed sale of the mineral lands is opposed by two 

 arguments : first, that it will lead to monopoly; and, secondly, 

 that gold mining in this state is so precarious, that miners 

 could not afford to have permanent residences and support 

 families. 



These two arguments are antagonistic to each other ; both 

 cannot be sound ; at least one of them must be fallacious. The 



