The Royal mines act Abolished by WAULESPAN

Actually, there was one case that I know of, that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and is considered a monumental case. I believe it was Shoemaker Vs United States, circa 1890's, and involved gold deposits on land that the government was trying to condem when they were forming Rock Creek Park.

"The court held that if any deposits of gold exist in said land, they are the property of the United States; that the State of Maryland was the owner of all mines of gold or other precious minerals within its borders by virtue of its confiscation of the property of the lord proprietary in 1780, who had never parted with his title, held under his charter from Charles I, to such mines, and that the Legislature of the State of Maryland, by its act of cession, transferred its interest in any possible gold mines in the ceded territory to the United States. During the argument upon that motion, the plaintiffs in error showed the court that any resurvey patent granted by the State of Maryland in 1803, under which the plaintiffs in error immediately claim title, there is no reservation of mines, and contended that as this patent was based upon a warrant of resurvey dated May 12, 1800, nine months before Congress assumed jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, the grantee under it acquired an equitable title to the land patented by virtue of that warrant. The court held that under the law of Maryland, no equitable title could be created until the return of the certificate of survey to the land office, and that, as the patent does not show that such certificate was returned to the office, and as the party obtaining the warrant had, under the law, two years in which to have the certificate returned, the presumption would be that it was not returned until after 1801, and that therefore the grantee could take no title whatever under the patent until its issue in 1803, and further that the State of Maryland could grant no title to lands within the ceded territory after the act of cession in 1791, and that the proviso therein with reference to the continuance of the jurisdiction of the laws of Maryland over persons and property in the ceded territory until Congress should provide for the government thereof applied only to laws affecting private rights, and did not continue the operation of the land laws of Maryland as to public lands owned by the state within that territory" - SHOEMAKER V. UNITED STATES, 147 U. S. 282 (1893)


The Shoemakers were demanding more money for the property, claiming that the gold it contained (discovered around the time of the condeming action) increased the value of the land. Basically, the court decided that precedent had been set by the Calvert, via the British Crown, during the colonial period (pre-1775/76) and that all rights inherint in the crown regarding Royal Mines passed directly to the state (Maryland, which donated some of its territory to form Washington, DC) when the British were defeated. That meant that the gold on the property belonged to the Federal Government, not the landowner, and they should be damn well pleased that they were getting what was being offered at the time!

Most states (with a few exceptions) now have laws where the landowners not only own the surface rights, but subsurface rights as well.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg193922.html#msg193922

As far as I know, that is the case here in Maryland, although in western Maryland, there may be some exception in the coal fields. Our Neighbor, West Virginia, was and still is notourious for having surface and subsurface rights divided, especially in coal country.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg194176.html#msg194176

		Quote:			Posted by Jeff Nagy
	I dug a little deeper and found a publication that I was not aware of. It was printed in 1808 and authored by John Kilty, the head of the Western Shore Land Office in the late 1700's in Maryland. He says that all mines, other than gold and silver, were expected to yield to the proprietor 1/10 of the mine output, which was to be collected at the "mouth of the mine" as the ore was brought out and processed. He explains that this was a change to the conditions under which land grants were made. It is condition #18 of #19 conditions for land grants in Maryland, dated 1733. I would guess to say that as long as they backed-off from calling lead, copper, tin, mines "Royal Mines," and demanding a 1/10th share instead of 1/5th as in Royal Mines, that they would be in line with the Royal Mines Act of 1693? What do you think? Jeff

In 1688 & 1693, with the Mines Royal Acts freshly printed, mine owners who fully understood their newly won rights, would not have felt obliged to pay any duties for base ores. I need to develop previously stated points.
The duty of 1/5th for Mines Royal was just a compromise, as the Crown only had a right to pay a fixed pre-emption prices for ores of lead, tin, iron and copper which contained any gold or silver. The Crown monopoly companies could have claimed and collected the ores in total, if there was any trace of gold or silver present. However it would not have been commercially viable for them to do so. If the mine owners refined any gold or silver from these ores they were obliged to bring them to the Royal Mint. Was there a branch of the Mint in the eastern states at this time?
Whoever was collecting duties from the mine owners in the states was really running a protection racket, misusing the Crown Prerogative to Mines Royal, established in 1568 and regulated to virtual abolition in 1693. This corruption was then formalised in state laws. Make sense?



Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg194725.html#msg194725

Hello and thanks for posting the new crownestate page on mines royal. Importantly this used to refer to the entire UK, so I would like to take credit for the fact that it has at last been officially accepted that Scotland has different laws. By the way, Scottish statute in effect requires 10% duty to be paid to the Monarch (possibly not the Crown Estate, although this still needs clarification) via the abolished office of the Master of Metals, which is obviously a very awkward situation.
The Crown Estate is still playing fast and loose with the laws in England and Wales though. For instance, the Crown Estate also states that it owns 'gold and silver in mineral strata', a description which only includes ore from mines, and does not include alluvial gold. The Crown's notion that royal prerogative transferred ownership of all precious metals, whether ore or alluvial gold, to the state was based on the ancient principles of the absolute monarch. However, we live in a democracy, so the monarch, and therefore the state's interest in royal prerogative cannot include absolutist ideals. The fact is that the Crown Estate relies upon general ignorance of the repealed and moribund nature of the laws it relies upon in England & Wales. I see it as part of my charitable remit for Gold Rivers Trust to blow ignorance out of the water, or in fact the rivers of England & Wales.
Also, there is nothing as far as I can see in statute that permits the Crown Estate to lease options to explore private lands in England & Wales, or Scotland for that matter. The purpose of the mines royal acts was to give landowners the right to prospect for all minerals, including those containing small amounts of gold and silver. It is accepted that mines of pure gold or silver would remain Mines Royal, or property of the Crown, but it would be up to landowners to negotiate with the Crown Estate if, for instance a gold panner stumbled across a large vein or lode of pure gold. The Crown Estate has absolutely no right in law to grant options or exploration licences to any company or person, unless the landowner or owners or occupiers agree to such an arrangement. The Crown Estate does not consult landowners or occupiers, so it has the cart before the horse. If it challenged knowledgable gold panners in court the Crown Estate would have to explain the basis of its claim to the judge, and any fair judge would I would hope be obliged to tell the Crown Estate to think again.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg327734.html#msg327734

Providing these nuggets of information is my pleasure. As you are based in the UK why don't you visit me on the Afon Wen and help move some big boulders for the real nuggets?
I am planning to be back in action this weekend if you don't mind the cold.

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,25800.msg327743.html#msg327743