SALE OF MINERAL LANDS. 445 
$3,450,000, with the New York and London security for cap- 
ital and interest, rathér 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 light 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 improvements which it would build up, without 
the population it would attract, and without the fixed wealth 
it would create. 
Again, the present system exercises a most prejudicial effect 
upon the finances of the state, and bears very 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 valleys is about three times as heavy as upon those in the 
mountains. The miners generally have 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 well 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 
