John C. Fremont and The Biddie-Boggs Case: Property Rights versus Mining Rights in Early California

By Paul Kens*

There is no way to know for certain who were the n Mariposa County, California, John Fremont men who formed tl1e Hornitos League.1 It is likely I is today revered as a hero, great explorer, and that some were employees of the Merced Mining founder. But in the eyes of many of the gold miners Company, which had a practical interest in keeping who settled the region in the 1850s, Fremont was Fremont from removing gold from a mine it had their worst nightmare - a land grabber and claim claimed earlier. It is just as likely that others were in­ jumper who was bent on having the wealth of the dependent miners, whose dreams and livelihood were Sierra Nevada foothills to himself. jeopardized by what they viewed as Fremont's inten­ On July 9,1858, a group of about 100 disgrun­ tions to claim ownership of just about every strike in tled miners, who named themselves the "Hornitos Mariposa County. In any case, the attack on the League," tried to jump a Fremont digging called the Black Drift Tunnel came to symbolize the miners' Black Drift tunnel. Fremont's tunnel was just one supporr for the traditional mining law based on the entrance into a large gold deposit known as the Pine principles of discovery and capture, and their opposi­ Tree Mine. The Pine Tree was, in turn, only one of tion to Fremont and rhe threat he posed to that tra­ many mines located along a gold-bearing quartz vein dition. some thought to be the mother lode. Although the On the night of the attack, The Hornitos League Pine Tree was first opened by a large company called men armed themselves to the teeth. Hoping to easily the Merced Mining Company, many of the region's get inside and then defend their position, they made hard rock mines, and hundreds of placer claims, were their move at a time when the Black Drift T unnel operated by independent miners and prospectors. would likely be deserted. When they arrived at the The Merced Mining Company, which grew to a entrance they found, to their surprise, that a small fairly large consortium funded with foreign invest­ group of Fremont's employees, also well armed, were ments, had one ve1y important thing in common inside. Faced with resistance, the Hornitos men de­ with the lone prospectors working small claims in cided to lay siege to the entrance and starve out the . Mariposa County. All their claims were located defenders. 2 within the boundaries of Fremont's rancho "Las As soon as he learned about the siege at the Black Mariposas." Fremont believed that he alone had the Drift Tunnel, Colonel Fremont set out to defend the night to mine deposits located under his grant. Up to mine with another small group of his men. W hen he this point, however, he had been unable to keep the arrived the siege settled into a tense stalemate with Merced Mining Company and independent miners Fremont's men in the mine, the Hornitos men at the from prospecting on his land. He had opened the entrance, more Fremont men surrounding them, and Black Drift Tunnel in order to compete in a race to even more Hornitos sympathizers blocking the roads take gold out of this rich deposit. out of the counry. Tension increased when the wife of one of Fremont's miners boldly forced her way *Professor of Political Science and History Southwest Texas into the runnel with food and ammunition. It rose State University. This article is adapted from rl1e author's book justice Stepbm Field: Shaping Liberty ji·01n the Gold Rush again when rumors spread that the Hornitos men to the Gilded Age, published by the University Press of Kansas had fo und a back way into the tunnel. O ne of the in April, 1997. Fremont men, "A tall, broad-shouldered giant, clad john C. Fremont and The Biddle-Boggs Case 9

placing the mine in the hands of two neu­ tral individuals until the California Su­ preme Court could finally decide who owned the mineral rights in the area. Fremont, calling the demands a flagrant violation of common right, would hear nothing of it. "I hold this property by law, by occupation, and even by mining regula­ tions," he replied. "This demand you make upon me is contrary to all my sense of justice, and what is due to my own honor."$ Although the roads were blocked, a young Englishman staying with the Fremonr's managed to slip through the back country with a message to the gover­ nor. Time, along with rumors that the state militia was moving in the direction of Mariposa, weakened the Hornitos miners' resolve. The siege quietly dissipated, leav­ ing Fremont in control of the mine. The siege of the Black Drift Tunnel was an evenr tinged with violence. It was a mi­ nor episode in a much larger conflict over how the land and minerals of California would be distributed and exploited . .In­ credible wealth, wild dreams, hope, and individual livelihood were part of the mix. The broader conflict was played out in a Figure 1. John C. Fremont. Courtesy of the Mariposa Museum, Mariposa setting in which the stabilizing force of County, California. govemmenc was at best unsettled. In all, it provided an ideal recipe for violence. It is in brown velvet, with belt and shiny appurtenances, a not surprising that violent confrontations over land wide sombrero shading his blond curling hair and and mineral rights did occur in the 1850s and 1860s tawny mustache," stood up and shouted a warning to in California. Given the circumstances, what may be watch out behind. "Click-dick- click went the cock­ more surprising is how relatively few incidents there ing of firearms on all sides," another remembered. were, and how quickly the violence dissipated. "Everyone seemed to be waiting for some one else to The episode at Black Drift Tunnel was more typi­ begin the fray" 3 But no one did, and the stalemate cal than not. Neither the siege nor the conflict char went on for several more days. "Fremont's men are spawned it would be settled by force of arms, nor well fortified in their tunnels," reported the San even by legislation. The conflict was ultimately see­ Francisco Evening Bulletin, "and if attacked by the ded by the judiciary in courts of law. And, it was set­ party which has surrounded them, there will be a ter­ tled by judges playing fast and loose with formalities rible slaughter."4 of law and principles of equity. Premier among these The terrible slaughter never occurred. On July judges was Stephen J. Field who sat on the California 12, a group calling themselves a committee on behalf Supreme Court from 1857 to 1863, and then on the of the citizens of Mariposa County sent written terms Supreme Court of the United States from 1863 until to Fremont. If Fremont would withdraw his forces almost the turn of cl1e century. and quit mining the shaft, they would also withdraw, In this paper I hope to illustrate Field's impact on 10 1998 Mining History ]ottrnal

the settlement of California by focusing on one par­ the best and fairest way ro exploit the mineral wealth ticular case, Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Company of California. Should one land owner have exclusive (1859). This case which marked the climax of a long right to the minerals lying beneath thousands of battle over the right to mine gold located under John acres of land or should the land be open for mining Fremont's Rancho Las Mariposas, reflected a dash of and exploration and subject to traditional mining views about how the California frontier should be laws based on the principles of discovety and capture. settled. The case also demonstrates the ascendancy of Most independent miners and settlers of Mari­ formal law over popular ideals of justice. Most of all, posa County believed that Fremont did not own the it illustrates the skill and influence of one man, Ste­ land in the first place. Under a strict reading of phen Field, who was often able to capture formal law Mexican law his claim to the land grant was seriously and mold it to suit his own ideals of justice and his deficient. Nevertheless, with its 1854 decision in own views about how the West should be settled. Fremont v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court For the independent miners and settlers who sup­ validated Fremont's gram and placed his legal claim ported the Hornitos League, the siege of the Black to the surface land in the mining region beyond dis­ Drift tunnel was not a matter of claim jumping. It pute/ was a matter of asserting their rights to lay claims There was still hope for the independent miners, and mine in some of the richest gold-producing however. Most of them believed that mineral rights lands in California. The race for gold began in Mari­ did not belong to the land owner. That was the rule posa County when, in 1850 a prospector named under Mexican law, at least, and it would be a major John R. Johnson discovered and claimed a better part issue in the final battle over Las Mariposas. "You say of Mariposa's "mother lode." Within the year, John­ that the highest Judicial tribunals have confirmed his son joined with some partners to form the Merced grant," J. Boling wrote to the Alta California. "This Mining company. The company set out to exploit I do not deny, but I do deny that these high tribu­ "the great Johnson vein" with operations at the Mr. nals of Justice have decided or confirmed the miner­ Ophir, Josephine, and Pine Tree mines. John als (the great bone of contention) in that grant of Fremont himself also made one of the early strikes, a land is to belong to Fremont; and until they do so, I quartz mine he called Mariposas. But Fremont did for one will use all my energy and resources to pre­ not merely claim the right to mine the veins he had vent him from wrenching, by force or otherwise, the discovered. Most of the Great Johnson vein lay be­ hard earned labor of those men who have in good neath land Fremont claimed under his 44,787 acre faith acquired their possessions. "8 (70 square miles) Mexican land grant "Las Maripo­ The legal battle for the mineral rights began in sas." And he maintained that he had the exclusive Januaty 1857 when Fremonr's agent, J. E. Clayton, night to all the minerals that lay beneath his land. published a demand that the Merced Mining Com­ Fremont and the Merced Mining Company were pany turn over possession of their Mr. Ophir works, the two major players in the drama that unfolded in including all the machinety, buildings and . the Mariposa region, but countless other prospectors out-houses, and leave the premises. Counterattack~ " .. . combing the hills with pick, shovel, and magni­ ing, the Merced Mining Company quickly won an fying glasses discovered hundreds of veins."6 injunction in the state court which prevented Clay­ The potential wealth of the region was staggering. ron from enforcing his demand and kept the The question of who had the right to appropriate Fremont interests from working the Merced claims. this wealth depended on whether mineral rights un­ Fremont then appealed to the California Supreme der a Mexican land grant belonged to the grant Court. In a decision upholding the injunction, Jus­ holder or whether they were part of the public do­ tice Peter Hart Burnett emphasized the urgency of main. Roughly speaking, under United States law Merced's plea. The only real value of a gold mining mineral rights would belong to the owner of the sur­ claim, he reasoned, were the minerals. Allowing this face land. Under Mexican law - the law by which wealtl1 to be taken away by outsiders would destroy Fremont claimed the land in the first place - mineral the vety substance of the estate. 9 The first minor le­ rights remained part of the public domain. Mixed gal skirmish was thus a victoty for Merced. More im­ into the conflict was a dash of ideals and theories of portant, however, miners saw that they could depend john C. Fremont and The Biddle~BoggJ Case 11

Figure 2. The Mariposa County Courthouse. Built in 1854, this sire of early legal battles between John C. Fremont and the Maripo sa Mining Company is the oldest courthouse in California. Coul'tesy of the Mariposa Museum, Mariposa County, California. on Justices Burnett and David Terry. Field was not knew." He was a jack~of~all~trades on the Fremont yet on the court. Burnett's opinion was drawn from estate: "tireless on foot or horseback, lazy as to all on legal theories that most miners favored and regular employment, shrewd of judgment, deliberate thereby provided a signal of the court's leanings. The in speech, with a perfectly delightful conceit in his most important of these theories came from the Cali~ own wisdom and imponance."" And, he was un~ fornia case of Hicks v. Bell (1853) which held that likely w have been able to afford the array of legal minerals on public lands belong to the state. Neither talent chat gathered in the Mariposa Courthouse to the state nor the federal government had expressly represent his interests. Among the eight attorneys granted miners a right of property in their claims, representing Boggs were Joseph Baldwin and Wil~ the court had admitted, bur by allowing miners to liam T. Wallace, both of whom were soon to become take gold from the public domain both governmems justices of the California Supreme Court, and former had implied that miners had some kind of right. 10 California Supreme Court Justice Solomon Heyden~ Even with the injunction in place, Fremont con~ feldt. Merced's attorneys included the powerhouse tinued his efforts to drive Merced off the land he San Francisco firm Halleck, Peachy, and Blllings.'2 claimed. In April 1857, he leased Mt. Ophir to a Although sympathizers for both sides packed the man named Biddle Boggs, who then filed suit to courtroom, most independent miners hitched their eject Merced from the property. John R. Howard, future to Merced's. Whether large operations or the son of Fremont's business associate, described lonely prospectors they were, in one sense, kindred Boggs as, "the most 'Dickensy' character I ever souls. Merced's claim, after all, hinged on theories 12 1998 Mining History journal

that supported a public right to mine for the miner­ rights to those minerals passed to the United States als located under both public and private lands in government. 15 California. The same general ideas formed the basis Bur what was the United States to do, and what for most of the prospecting claims in the state. Most had it done, with those minerals? The answer to this of the miners in the audience must have been disap­ question, Burnett implied, would determine whether pointed, therefore, when this second prelimina1y prospectors had a right to mine for government skirmish resulted in a victory for Fremont. On July owned gold on privately owned land. Burnett began 2, 1857, District Judge Edward Burke ruled that with a practical observation. The government's right Merced had no equitable rights to the minerals at the to the gold, he said, necessarily carried with it the Mr. Ophir works. Consequently, he concluded, right to enter private property and search for and dig Fremont was entitled to possession of the disputed that gold. The ownership would be worthless with­ property plus damages for loss of revenue. 13 out the power to rake possession of the minerals. Fremont's claim to the minerals beneath Las Burnett then noted that the government had not Mariposas was still nor completely secure, however. done the work of mining itself. Rather, it has Less than a month later the Merced Mining Com­ ad~pred a policy of allowing private individuals to pany filed an appeal to the California Supreme mine the gold. By doing so, the federal government Court. Merced maintained that under Mexican law, had implicitly transferred its right to dig for those the law upon which Fremont's claim was based, minerals to miners, he reasoned. The government ownership of minerals did not pass to a grantee along had, in other words, given them what amounted to a with the surface rights. Fremont's attorneys argued general license to mine below private lands. It fol­ that it did not matter whether tide to minerals passed lowed, according to Burnett, that government policy, to grant holders under Mexican law. Under United combined with traditional mining law, had the prac­ States law ownership included both the land and the tical effect of giving the owners of mining claims a minerals under the surface. Once the United Stares good vested ride to the property of their claim. 16 had issued a patent, they reasoned, irs law should Even if that claim lay within the boundaries of a con­ govern. Besides, they said, to hold that one man had finned Mexican land grant. the right to bring a troop of men to dig up another's Justice David Teny agreed with the outcome of farm in order to hunt for gold or silver would be "an the Biddle Boggs case, bur wrote a separate opinion odious doctrine." lr would amount to taking private saying that it was sufficient to rule that Fremont did property and appropriating it to the private uses of not own the rights to the minerals under his land. another. 14 Stephen Field, who had just recently been elected, In March 1858, the Supreme Court of California dissented without comment. 17 The Merced Mining delivered an opinion in Biddle Boggs v. Merced Min­ Company and the independent miners of Mariposa ing Company. Judge Peter Hart Burnett's opinion for County appeared to have secured a final vicr01y. For the court was, once again, all that Merced and inde- them the decision meant that Fremont had no more . pendent miners could have hoped for. First, Burnett claim to minerals on Las Mariposas than did other addressed the issue of who owned the mineral rights. miners - "He could nor claim the fruits of labor of When it passed the California Land Act of 1851, others nor prevent their operations."18 The result of Congress did not grant any new rights, Burnett ob­ the Biddle Boggs case was not as certain as it ap­ served. The purpose of the Act was to confirm old peared, however. Fremont's forces quickly filed for tides. Hence, the United States patent that recog­ a rehearing in the California Supreme Court. This nized Fremont's claim ro Las Mariposas could nor type of motion was usually a technicality. Rehearing vest in him any tide that was not already included in was seldom granted. Fremont's legal maneuver, the original grant. Since the laws of Mexico reserved therefore, would nor have been vety threatening to all mineral rights to the state, title to the minerals miners, had it not been for intervening factors. Con­ beneath Las Mariposas did not pass to a grantee when fident of their rights to the Pine Tree Mine and other the Mexican governor made the original land grant. claims in the area, the miners and settlers, or The state still owned the minerals and, when Mexico "Hornitos League," set our to shut down or appro­ signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, irs priate Fremont's diggings at the Black Drift tunnel. John C. Fremont and The Biddle-BoggJ Case 13

The drama that the siege at the Black Drift tun­ and miners considered the Biddle Boggs decision to nel produced in the summer of 1858 was matched be a vindication of their position on land issues. only by the political intrigue surrounding the Cali­ Now their greatest concern was that the court would fornia Supreme Court. Just as Judge Peter Hart Bur­ grant a rehearing and change irs opinion. Naturally, nett, author of the Biddle Boggs decision, was nearing settlers and miners condemned Baldwin for his role. the end of his term, the slavety issue caused a split in One reported that "We regard the doctrines of Mr. the Democratic Party. With state elections coming Baldwin, as expressed in his brief, as subversive of up, the Lecompton (pro-slavety) wing chose Joseph and fatal to the holding and enjoyment of property Baldwin over the incumbent Burnett as candidate for in the mineral districts in this state."23 If politicians the state's highest court. John Cuny, was the An­ were successful in electing Baldwin to the bench, ti-Lecompton (anti-slavety) nominee, and also the warned another, " [A man's] ve1y homestead, bought Republican nominee.19 Burnett, the incumbent, was and paid for, under a solemn decision of the Su­ left out of the race altogether. preme tribunal made last year, might be wrested Although the slavery debate now began to cloud from him by an adverse decision of the same tribunal local issues more than it had earlier in the decade, made to-marrow ..." 24 local issues remained in the forefront of this contest Despite heavy opposition from the miners and for the state supreme court. Both sides agreed. settlers, Baldwin was elected to the California Su­ "Nothing was so important ro the people as election preme Court on September 1, 1858. He took his seat of a proper person to fill the seat on the Supreme on the second day of October. With Burnett gone, Court," said Baldwin supporters. They called for Justices David Terry and Stephen Field canceled each consistency, honesty, and intellect on the bench. Un­ other out on issues relating to land policy. Teny, der past courts, they argued, " ... titles to property who had proven to be a staunch and outspoken sup­ have been unsettled, well settled principles of law porter of the settlers and miners, was unlikely to have been overturned, the rulings of the court have compromise. He and Field both possessed the same been variable, fluctuating, and often contradictoty; unbending will and they seemed to dash on virtually and as a necessaty result, we have been floating on a every kind of issue. Baldwin's presence may actually sea of uncertainty and doubt, in respect to our most have presented a quandaty. Under normal condi­ sacred rights of person and property." The public, tions, he would be the deciding vote and there was they concluded, should no longer submit ro the rule no question that he would side with Field. The two, of men who color their decisions in accordance with who saw eye to eye on evety issue, soon became the what they believe to be the current public Senti­ best of friends. Baldwin even named his son, Sidney ment.20 Field Baldwin, in Field's honor.25 But his recent The choice was clear to California's miners and status as Fremont's attorney made it difficult for settlers. They knew they could have depended on Baldwin to participate in the Biddle Boggs case. Al­ Burnett and they knew just as well that Baldwin's though the standards of judicial ethics were different leanings would be with Fremont. The miners' and in those days, this close a connection would have settlers' attack on Baldwin was fierce. They ques­ been difficult to justify and possibly would have tioned Baldwin's honesty, his integrity, and his intel­ weakened the value of any decision the court made.26 ligence. They painted him as the candidate of politi­ Apparently in deadlock, the Biddle Boggs case sat on cians and demagogues. "We have seen him ann in the court's docker for almost an entire year. It re­ ann with pot-house politicians, with legislative bro­ mained dormant until Justice Terry's actions off the kers, treasury thieves and public gamblers," wrote the bench ended the stalemate. San Francisco Evening Bulletin. Worse yet, opponents Terry's term on the Supreme Court was due to claimed, Baldwin was the candidate of "d1at objec­ end in Januaty 1860. In the Fall of 1859 he sought tionable class . .. the tricky and scheming lawyers."21 the nomination of the Lecompton Democrats. Al­ If these drawbacks were not enough, settlers and ways a vocal and loyal southerner, Teny spoke pas­ miners only needed to recall that a few months earlier sionately to the convention about the right to own Baldwin had argued the Biddle Boggs case on rehear­ slaves and the doctrine of states' rights. He also had ing - as one of the attorneys for FnSmont!22 Settlers harsh words for Anti-Lecompton forces who he re- 14 1338 Mining History journal

ferred to as "personal chattels of a single individual, tiled his claim in 1852, the land commission ordered whom they are ashamed o£"27 Anti-Lecomptonites, that a survey of the claim be made according to he said, belonged "heart and soul, body and Fremont's wishes and his first map of the grant, or breeches" to Senator David Broderick. Somewhat diseiio, filed with the Mexican government in 1849. surprisingly, the Lecompton convention chose W. Following the commission's order, surveyor AJlexey W. Cope, over Terry, as its candidate for the stare W . Von Schmidt drew a panhandle shaped map of supreme court. But the event ultimately had a more Las Mariposas. Half of the land was a six by five mile important impact on California political history. rectangle chat included the town of Mariposas and Broderick, apparently insulted by Terry's comments, adjacent mineral lands. The ocher half of the rancho struck back. In earshot of one of Terry's friends, he ran in a long narrow line encompassing farming and said: "I have hitherto spoken of [Terry) as an honest grazing lands for thirty miles down the watershed of man - as the only honest man on the bench of a mis­ the Mariposa River. For the most part, it appeared erable, corrupt Supreme Court - but now I find I that conflict over mining operations had been was mistaken. I take it all back. He is just as bad as avoided since the survey did not extend north into the othersY the central region of the mother lode. Most claims in Although dueling was outlawed in California, the region, it seemed, would continue to be recog­ David Teny was one of those who clung to its out­ nized on the basis of traditional mining law- discov­ moded code of honor. When he learned of the insult, ety and appropriation. By the time the United States he resolved to "receive satisfaction" from Broderick. Supreme Court finally validated Fremont's claim to Terry waited until the general elections were over. Las Mariposas in 1854, the Merced Mining Com­ Then he sent his challenge. Broderick accepted and pany had resumed control of its operations and was on Tuesday September 13, the two men faced off. In having better success. Smaller companies and indi­ a matter of minutes, Broderick lay mortally viduals also operated profitably in the region. wounded. Three days later he died. Astonishingly, as parr of its ruling in Fremont v. Rumor spread that the duel was rigged and that United States (1854), the United States Supreme the entire event was a conspiracy perpetrated by Court ordered that a new survey be taken. 30 This Southerners. Broderick, never before so popular and order created an incredible opportunity, which admired, became a martyr for the northern cause. Fremont eventually turned to his advantage. Follow­ The duel had a significant effect on the state supreme ing the Supreme Court's directive, the United States court as well. Terry, now a political pariah, resigned District Court appointed former Texas Ranger John before the end of his term. His resignation allowed C. "Jack" Hays to make the new survey. In order to the governor to appoint W. W. Cope to his place. make the rancho more compact, Hays proposed cut­ Cope chen won the general election in November, ting off the long extension down the Mariposa River. and the path was now paved for a final decision in He retained the six-by- five- mile rectangle as Von Biddle Boggs. Because Cope sided with Field, his ap­ Schmidt had laid it out. Hays chen asked Fr~mont's pointment changed the balance on the court so that manager, J. E. Clayton, for suggestions about where it was no longer necessary for Baldwin to participate. the remainder of the grant should be located. The Field, who had become chief justice when Terry re­ resulting Hays survey in 1855 created an estate that signed, wrote the opinion in the second Biddle Boggs was very different from the rancho laid out in the case. 29 It proved to be all of what the miners' had Von Schmidt survey of 1852. It certainly was a much feared. more compact area. But the new survey also shifted The second Biddle Boggs case addressed an issue onto Fremont's estate most of the valuable mineral that had not been part of the earlier decision. The lands in the region; including the Merced Mining Merced interests added to their legal argument a new Company's Mt. Ophir, Josephine, and Pine Tree element founded upon theories of fraud and equita­ mines.31 ble estoppel. This argument focused on the fact that The theory of equitable estoppel argued that there had been two surveys of Lrts Mariposas. Fremont's second survey produced an unfair result. Fremont's land grant, as originally surveyed, did not Acting on the basis of Fremont's earlier survey and cover most of the rich mining region. After Fremont his actions, others had staked claims in these areas. John C. Frlmont and The Biddle-Boggs Case 15

They had expended hundreds of thousands of dollars dle Boggs decision. Directly reversing the earlier case, and their own labor to develop these claims. Ir would he ruled that Judge Burnett's theo1y that the govern­ be unfair now, the argument ran, to take this prop­ ment had given miners an implied license to take the erty from them. minerals had no merit. There could be no license in The charges of equitable estoppel and fraud had the legal meaning of that term, he reasoned, because more emotional appeal than legal merit. Equitable such a license could only be created by an Act of claims such as these faced technical legal hurdles. To Congress and Congress had adopted no specific legis­ win under a theory of fraud, Merced would have to lation on the subject. Field had always maintained prove Fremont had intended to deceive them or that that requiring strict construction of Mexican laws Fremont misrepresented his claim. Merced would would be an injustice to grant holders. Now he was also be required to prove Fremont intended that requiring strict construction of American law - re­ Merced rely on that misrepresentation. Either would gardless of any injustice it might bring to miners and be a difficult task since technically the Supreme settlers. Court of the United States, nor Fremont, had or­ The doctrine of unlimited general license to take dered that a new survey be taken. Also, even though minerals from private lands was, Field said, Fremont had agreed to the resul t, the federal govern­ "pregnant with the most pernicious consequences." ment had commissioned the new survey that encom­ What value would there be to a title in one man, passed the mineral lands. Field had no difficulty dis­ with a right of invasion in the whole world, he posing of the fraud claim. It had no basis, he ruled. asked? Besides, Field reasoned, Biddle Boggs and Merced were the parties to this suit. Fremont's rights could There is something shocking to all our not be impaired in a suit between third parries. 32 ideas of the rights of property in the proposi­ Equitable estoppel required the same kind of tion that one man may invade the possessions proof Even if Fremont had made misrepresentations of another, dig up his fields and gardens, cur about the location of his claim, Merced would have down his timber and occupy his land, under to prove that he willfully made them and that he in­ the pretense that he has reason to believe there tended to deceive Merced and other miners. Once is gold under the surface, or if existing, that he again, Field had no problem disposing of the claim. wishes to extract and remove it. 35 Merced knew the grant was a floating one, he pointed out. To transfer Fremont's rights to them The second Biddle Boggs opinion did not deter­ now would result in the lughest degree ofinequity.33 mine who owned the minerals under private land. Technical rules of law did not convince miners Field had assumed, for purposes of the case, that they and settlers. With just a bit of sarcasm, Horace P. belonged to the United States. Neither did the opin­ Russ, of the Quartz Miners' Association, reponed ion completely reject the notion of implied license. what the Court had said to Fremont regarding the All it did was to hold that any presumption of an im­ mineral lands: plied license did not take precedence over the rights of private land owners. Miners thus did not have a Yes, take them; they are yours. You did not right to enter private land. But the effect of the opin­ claim the land when these people were build­ ion, as a practical matter, was to shift the implied ing the works, in fact you disclaimed it, but license to extract materials from miners to landown­ that was a mistake for which you must not be ers. In a way, it gave Fremont a monopoly of access prejudiced; you did not find the vein or make to the public resources within the area he claimed. the tunnel, or build the mills, or level the Devastating as this decision might have been to roads; you have done nothing except manage miners and settlers, the court had not gone so far as a survey skillfully; but take the property, the to rule that mineral rights belonged to the land­ law gives it to you. 34 holder. Perhaps the Biddle Boggs decision was only a stop gap measure made necessa1y because of With the equity claims out of the way, Field Baldwin's earlier participation in the case as turned to the issue that had dominated the first Bid- Fremont's attorney.36 One year later, in combined 16 1998 Mining History journal

cases of Moore v. Smaw and Fremont v. Flower racist, the letter accurately reflected miners' fears that (1861), Field did rule that the right to minerals the court's policy would reduce them to wage earners passed to the landholder who had received a United or peasants. Their fears were not totally unfounded. States patent. 37 Field professed to believe that "the By the 1860s it was becoming obvious that the Cali­ court could not, without doing injustice ro individu­ fornia dream of an egalitarian paradise would never als, give to the Mexican laws a more narrow and materialize. 42 strict construction than they received from the Mexi­ The second Biddle Boggs opinion did not bode can authorities who were entrusted with their execu­ well for settlers either. It reflected a long cherished tion."38 In Moore v. Smaw and Fremont v. Flower, prejudice against squatters and squatter rights, re­ however, he was willing to give to the grant holder ported the Union, and a belief that "no amount of something that Mexican law definitely did not give - evidence could shake the opinion of the Court in the mineral rights. The Mexican law, under which own­ infallibility of land patents - no matter how ac­ ership of the minerals would remain with the state, quired."43 Field made no secret of his insistence on was based upon an archaic theory ofjura regalia un­ the infallibility of land patents nor of his belief that der which mines of value were held for the crown, the government should make eve1y effort to protect Field reasoned. In America the government did not rights based on Mexican land grants. He was proud own property by right of sovereignty but rather by of it. In the many land cases he faced in his judicial right of ownership like eveqone else. Unless it had career, he seldom deviated from it. 44 expressly reserved mineral rights, when the govern­ While on the California Supreme Court, he regu­ ment gave a parent to land owners, it transferred eve­ larly held that people claiming estates under Mexican lything. Field's opinion was a masterpiece of legal land grants were nor required to. prove they had reasoning.'9 Bur it required a leap of legal logic that strictly complied with the formalities of Mexican non-lawyers were not likely to appreciate. law.45 When elevated to the United States Supreme The beauty of Field's opinion was that it put court, Field continued giving claimants every benefit miners in the awkward position of having based their of the doubt. He wled, for example, that the words claim on a particularly odious form of sovereignty in a grant "five leagues more or less" supported a (jura regalia). The opinion placed land owners on the grantee's claim to eleven leagues. The phrase was nor philosophical high ground, claiming that their rights a limitation on the quantity of land granted, he rea­ represented freedom from government interference. soned, bur rather a conjectural estimate of the In chis respect it was a good Jacksonian argument. amount of property described. 46 Where fraud was When applied to protect small property holders, as it clear, Field did nor hesitate to rule against the claim­ later was in Dubenspeck v. Grear (1861), this appeal amY But, in his opinions, the benefit of the doubt to the sanctity of private property had an attractive­ usually seemed to go to the claimant. In Maltt1·in v. ness for every one raised on that tradition. Even the United States (1863) he validated a grant of two pro-settler and pro-miner Sacramento Union admit­ leagues even though the original document had been red char the "luminous and voluminous" opinion re­ altered, changing it from one league to rwo.48 ln an­ flected some credit upon the ability of its author.40 other decision the same year, he validated a grant However much some intellectuals among the even though it was dated after the time Mexican miners might admire the opinion, most miners were authorities said they had quit issuing grants.49 In still more aware of the practical effect the opinion would another case he held that the decree of the Board of have on their way of life when applied to Fremont's Land Commissioners was valid even if it granted dif­ vast claim. Mining rights must be free to all so that ferent land to an individual than that which was de­ the poor have as good an opportunity as the rich, scribed in the original grant.5° Field also strove to cried one letter to the Union. Predicting the worst, smooth the procedure affecting suits over land tides, the author warned that, "To allow the mining dis­ maldng it as favorable as possible to the claimants. 51 tricts to be monopolized by a few land holders would He undoubtedly believed that the United States had result in them having the white laboring population a duty to protect even the imperfect and equitable as much under their control as a Southern planter titles of Mexican granrees.52 has his black slaves. "41 Although exaggerated and Where settlers were involved, however, Field's john C. Fremont and The Biddie-Boggs Case 17

generosity abated. He required strict compliance with investment went to Fremont. With Fremont control­ United States homestead laws. The most revealing ling both the land and the minerals, independent cases involved the issue of whether homesteaders had mining companies could work only under leases from an equitable interest in property they had settled on, him. Placer miners were affected as well when even though they had not yet fulfilled all of the re­ Fremont instituted a "tax" for the privilege of work­ quirements of federal preemption law. Roughly ing the region. 56 speaking, the law required that a homesteader occupy Although Fremont emerged as the winner of this the land, cultivate it, and pay a small fee. In the Yo­ long legal battle, he was not destined to keep Las semite Valley Case (1872) Field wled that the act of Mariposas for long. In 1863, desperately in debt, he occupying land and cultivating it did not give home­ turned to New York financiers Morris Ketchum, steaders a vested interest in their claims. Until they James Hoy, and George Updike to bail out his min­ paid the fee, the government technically still owned ing operations. The group formed a company which the land.53 The homesteaders' attorney argued that, bought Fremont out, leaving him little interest in Las once the land was occupied and cultivated, the settler Maripostts: and no control. The miners and settlers of had a vested interest. The government, he reasoned, Mariposa County must have had mixed feelings was thus bound by irs good faith to protect settlers at about Fremont's destiny. The vengeful among them this stage of their claims. But Field ruled that settlers surely tound some satisfaction in his downfall. But on public land had absolutely no right to the land the Jacksonian in them was just as surely amazed and until they had paid the purchase tee. In contrast to depressed that the great wealth of rhe Sierra Nevadas his treatment of grant holders, Field was willing to had simply dissipated and ended up in the pockets of hold settlers to the technical requirements of the law. bankers and financiers. It was nor only the policy outcome of the Biddle Justice Field's brother, David Dudley Field, rep­ Boggs decision and Moore v. Smaw and Fremont v. resented Fremont in the transaction with Ketchum, Flower that frustrated miners and settlers, but also Hoy, and Updike. His fee was 2000 shares of Mari­ the fact that the court had seized the power to deter­ posas stock (worth $200,000 at par value). Many mine that policy. Field's opinion amounted to legis­ people thought Fremont had been cheated and lation and was undemocratic, complained a letter to David Dudley Field had been part of the conspir­ the Alta California. Public use, custom, and opinion acy. 57 Fremont, however, apparently held no animos­ had not done away with the Mexican mining laws, ity toward the judge or his brother. He later em­ the letter explained. America's written law had not ployed David Dudley Field's services again in his fi­ repealed them. The people had adopted them. Eq­ nal financial disaster, the bankruptcy of the Mem­ uity pmtected all rights seemed by them. 54 Yet Judge phis and El Paso Railroad.58 Field had ignored them. It was not the last time The business relationship between Fremont and Field would be charged with legislating from rhe David Dudley Field must have added fuel to charges bench. that Justice Field had a financial interest in the out­ To many miners and settlers Las Mari.postts now come of Biddle Boggs. Complaints of this sort were seemed like a small principality. The result of Field's not uncommon during the 1850s. Charges of cor­ opinions, wrote the Sacramento Union, was that ruption seemed to accompany evety significant case every species of property included within the metes before the California Supreme Court and evety elec­ and bounds of the "notoriously fraudulent survey" tion of the state's supreme court justices. With re­ belonged to Fremont. "The Court House, even, is at spect to Biddle Boggs, a pamphlet entitled "The Gold the mercy of the Colonel, and its occupants are liable Key Court or the Corruptions of a Majority of It" to vacate the building at his bidding."55 Although claimed that both Baldwin and Field had profited. clearly exaggerating, the Union was not far off the Field, it said, had received $50,000 in Fremont mark. In the town of Mariposa and other settle­ bonds for his services in reversing the former judg­ ments, people were forced to pay Fremont for the ment of the Court. 59 As might be expected, there is land upon which they had settled and believed they no hard evidence that Field was involved in any brib­ already owned. The Merced Mining Company lost ety scheme. The only thing that is certain is that he all it had developed. Its claims, its equipment, and its was of like mind with those who had an interest in 18 1998 Mining History journaL

Fremont's success. He admired men like Fremont lawfulness. 61 Immigrants brought with them "norms and John Sutter, respected Fremont's attorney Hey­ of legal conduct," Reid explains. In their new homes denfeldt, and became great friends with Baldwin. they followed rules pertaining to sales, contract, These men shared a belief that the fate of the nation property rights, and other relationships that were depended on the sanctity of private property, as they similar to the rules they had followed in their former saw ir. Their faith may have been convenient in the homes. Perhaps the Biddle Boggs case reflects that, in way ir was applied to the California mining and land addition to norms of legal conduct, seeders also cases but, in the absence of any other evidence, one brought West an abiding respect for formal law. can only assume it was genuine.60 Stephen Field, more than any other figure of his Despite charges that rhe court had ignored prop­ time, seemed to understand and appreciate chis. He erty rights and ignored traditional mining law - de­ also took advantage of it by masterfully molding for­ spite complaints of injustice, threats of violence, and mal law to suit his vision of how the West should be charges of bribery- ultimately the miners and settlers settled. It was a vision that clearly reflected admira­ acquiesced to the final decision of the California Su­ tion for power and privilege. preme Court. John Phillip Reid has long maintained California miners and settlers detested Stephen that, far from being the lawless society often de­ Field. They complained about him, they probably picted, the frontier West, and gold rush California in would have voted him our of his office on the Calfor­ particular, was characterized by an amazing degree of nia Supreme Court had he nor first been appointed

Figure 3. The Mt. Ophir Mill (1860). The Biddle B11ggs decision resulted in the ownership of property such as this passing from t he Mariposa Mining Company to John C. Fremont. Courtesy of the Mariposas Museum, Mariposa County, California. John C. Fremont and The Biddie-Boggs Case 19

to the federal bench, they tried to impeach him from to formal law, miners and serders complied. Under­ the United States Supreme Court, and one person standing this respect for formal law allowed Field to even tried to assassinate him.62 But once the court deeply influence the development of California and had finally ruled, once Field's view became attached the West.

N OTES

I . Hornitos was the name of a nearby California mining town gion, 1849-1859," 246. with a reputation for lawlessness. Thus, Jessie Benton 14. Biddle Boggr 11. Merced Mining Company, 14 Cal. 279. Fremont thought many of the men were common crim i­ 289-91. arguments of Joseph Baldwin and S. Heydenfeldt, nals. for Respondent. Interestingly, Biddle Bogg.r I was nor im­ 2. For the story of the siege of the Black Drift Mine, I have mediately published in the California Reports. It is r e­ relied upon: Charles Gregoty Crampton. "The Opening of porred along with the later opinion in 1859. A reprint of the Mariposa Mining Region. 1849-1859, with particular the first opinion appeared in Altfl Cfllijomitl, March 19, Reference to the Mexican L·md Grant of John Charles 1858. 1-3. Fremont." PhD diss., University of California. Berkeley, 15. Biddle Boggs, 14 Cal. at 305-07. Fremont actually pur­ 1941. 250-253; John Raymond Howard. Remembmnce of chased the land from Juan Alvarado who was the original Things Pmt (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1925).84 -87; grantee. Following a chain of tide, Burnett reached the Allan Nevins, Frbmmt: Pathmnrker of the West (Lincoln: logical conclusion that Alvarado had no mineral rights to Bison Books, University of Nebraska Press, 1992). 464 -65; give when he sold his property to Fremont. Jessie Benton Fremont, Fnr West Sketches (Boston: D . Lo­ 16. Biddle Boggs, 14 Cal. at 312-314. throp Company, 1890) 53 -83. 17. Biddle Boggs, 14 Cal. at 314; For pro -Fremont editorials 3. Howard, Remembrance ofThings Pmt, 86-87. and lettc.-rs see, Altn Crtlifomia, March 24, 1858. I -5, 2- 1; 4. San Francisco EtJening Bulletin, July 15,1858. 2-3. May 24, 1858. 1-5. 5. Both letters are reprinted in the San Francisco E11ming 18. Crampton, "The Opening of the Mariposa Mining Re­ Bulletin, July 15, 1858. 2-3. By this time, even the Bulletin gion. 1849-1859." 249. considered the Merced group aggressors. 19. Davis HistO/yofPolitimlConJtt!lltiom in Califomifl, 90. 92, 6. Charles Gregory Crampton, "The Opening of the Mar i­ 94. posa Mining Region, 1849-1859." 172; also see, Hubert 20. Altn Califomitt, August, 6, 1858, 2 -I; August 29, 1858, Howe Bancroft, History ofCnlijomia VoL Vl1848-J859. 2-2; July 16, 1858.2 -I. in T he Works of Hubert Howe Bancwft, voL 23 (San 21. San Francisco Evening Bulletin, August 13, 1858, 2-1; Francisco: The History Company, Publishers, 1888) 416; August 25. 1858, 2 - I. Ira B. Cross, Financing 011 Empire: History of Bnnking in 22. Biddle Bogg.r, 14 Cal. at 315, notes that a rehearing having Ct~lifomin , 4 vols. (Chicago: The SJ Clarke Publishing been granted, the case was again argued at the July tel'ln, Co., 1927) vol. 1, 131. 1858. Baldwin's argume nr is summarized on pages 332-33. 7. Frtmonttl. UnitedStates, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 551 (1854). 23. Sa n Francisco E11ming Bulletin, June 4, 1858, 3-3. 8. Altn Califomia, August 2, 1858. 3-1. Boling was a member 24. San Francisco E11wing Bulletin, August 7. 1858, 2 -1; of the Central Committee of the Miners and Settlers Ass o­ August 13. 1858. 2-1 ; August 25. 1858. 2-1; August 31. ciation of Mariposa: see, San Francisco Etle!ling Bulletin, 1858. 2-1;June 10, 1858.2-1. Junc.-4,1858,3 - 3. 25. Davis, History of Political COimentiom in Cttlifomin, 9. Merced Mining Company v. Frbnont , 7 Cal 317 (1857). 1849-1832 (Sacramento: California Stare Library, 1893) Terry concurred in the opinion and Murray wrote a sep a­ 95; ]ohmon, Histo1y ofSupreme Comt}mtices ofCalifomifl rate opinion. Merced's supporters also argued that the 1850-1300 2 vols. (San Francisco: Bender -Moss Company. Company's gold was being robbed; see Alta CniJfomin, 1963). 77. August 2, 1858. 3- l. 26. Field sat on a few cases to which he had been connected as 10. Hicks v. BelL. 3 Cal. 219 (1853). an attorney. He even argued some cases before the Califo r­ 11. John Raymont Howard, Remembmnce ofThings Pmt (New nia Supreme Court after he had already been elected; see York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1925). 81 . Biddle People v. Barbour, 9 Cal. 230 (1858). l have not found any Boggs is also described in Nevins, Allan Nevi ns, Frbnont: cases in which he participated in the decision afterwards, Path marker ofthe West, 460; and in Rolle, 180. however. 12. Newell Chamberlain, The Call of Gold: Tme Tales on the 27. A. Russell Buchanan, DavidS. Teny ofCnlifomin: Dueling Gold Rand to Yosemite (Mariposa, CA: The Gazette Press, ]11dge (San Marino, C1.: The Huntington Library, 1956). 1936) 64. 94. 13. Crampton, "The Opening of the Mariposa Mining R e- 28. Buchanan, DavidS. TmyofCnlifomia, 95-110; David A. 20 1998 Mining History journal

Williams, Dri/Jid C. Broderick: A Politicrtl Portmit (San power, and courage. They were certain that the path he Marino, Ca: The Huntington Library, 1969), 230 -61 ; chose to follow would protect property rights and enhance Davis, History ofPolitical Ctn111e11tions in Crtlifi11'nia , I 04. the economic development of the stare. He had neither 29. Biddle Boggs 11. Merced Mining Company, 14 Cal. 279 courred personal popularity nor shrunk from unpopularity (1859), the second opinion begins on page 355. Cope co n­ by means of his decisions, wrote John Norton Pomeroy, curred. see John Norton Pomeroy, Some Account tif tfu: Work of 30. Frbnont 11. United State.r 58 U.S. (17 How.) 542, 565 Stephen]. Field, 34, 29-35. (1854); also see Crampton, "The Opening of the Mar i­ 45. See, Ferris V. Coo/1/:r, 10 Cal. 588 (1858); also see, United posa Mining Region, 1849-1859," 224; also see ·u. S. 11. States 11. Augisoln, 68 U.S. (I Wall) 352 (1863) Frbuont, 59 U.S. (17 How.) 30, 31 -34 (1855) which up­ 46. UnitedStrttt'S IJ. D'Aguin·e, 68 U.S. (1 Wall) 311 (1863) holds the district court order ofJudges Hall McAllister and 47. Pico 11. United Stntes, 69 U.S. (2 Wall) 279 (1864); Gm- Ogden Hoffinan ro carry out the ruling of Fremont 11. hnm v. UnitedStntes, 7 1 U.S .. (4 Wall) 259 (1866). United States. 48. Mnlnrin1'· United States, 68 U.S. (I Wall) 282 (1863). 31. Crampron, "The Opening of the Mariposa Mining Re­ 49. United States 11. Yorbn, 68 U.S. (1 Wall) 412 (1863). gion, 1849-1859," 231 -34, explains Hays's rationale for 50. United Stfltes v. Hnlleck, 68 U.S. (1 Wall) 439 (1863). removing the pan handle from the survey. 51. Field's first significant opinion fort he U.S. Supreme Court 32. Ibid., 357-66 held that, prior ro an 1860 Act of Congress, the United 33. Ibid., 366-73. Attempting to sway public sentiment, States District Court had no jurisdiction to corre cr surveys Fremont's attorneys argued it was the Government that or revise the action of the Surveyor General, United Stntes insisted on the second survey. Fremont, they claimed, had 11. Sepulrmitt, 68 U.S. (1 Wall) 104 (1863). Following his never wanted it. San Francisco Er1ening Bulletin, June 8, California rule, he held that the issue of fraud could nor be 1858, 3-3. raised for the first time on appeal, United States 11. Augisoln, 34. A/ttl Cal~fomirt, November 26, 1859, I -3; This article may 68 U.S. (l Wall) 352 (1863). Yet he was willing to allow also be found in a scrapbook of newspaper clippings cove r­ rhe claimant of a grant to unite his claim for rents and ing the Biddle Boggs case which are held at the Huntington damages to a suit for ejectment, Beard 11. Fede1y, 70 U.S. {3 Library. Wall) 478 (1865). Following another doctrine he had de­ 35. Biddle Boggs, 14 Cal. at 379. veloped on the state court, he ruled that when boundaries 36. Ibid, 375. designated in the grant contain more land than confirmed 37. Hich IJ. BelL, 3 Cal. 219 (1853). by the Board, the grantee has the right to select the loc a­ 38. HorJJJby IJ. United States, 77 U.S. (10 Wall) 224, 237 rion of his land, United Stntes 11. Pncheco, 69 U.S. {2 Wall) (1869). Field was citing the Fremollt case. 587 (1864). 39. Moore 11. Smarv rmd Frbnont IJ. Florve1; 17 Cal. 199 (1861); 52. Homsby v. United Sttttes, 77 U.S. (10 Wall) 224 (1867). for an admiring contemporaty review see, 10 American Even in conflicts among people claiming Mexican grants to Law Register 462 ( 1862). the same land, he displayed a genet'ous sense of equity, 40. See Daubenspeclt 11. Grear, 18 Cal. 443 (1861) for a case United State.r IJ. Am1~jo, 72 U.S. (5 Wall) 444 (1866). applying the doctrine to a small plot. Sacramento Union, 53. Tht· Yosemite V11lley Cnse (Hutchings 11. Low), 82 U.S. (15 November 26, 1859, 2-3; Wall) 77 (1872); this opinion followed Frisbie 11. Whitney, 41. Sacramento Union, December 15, 1859, 1 -7. 76 U.S. (9 Wall) 187 (1869) in which Field joined the 42. Robert A. Burchell, "The Faded Dream: Inequality in majority in ruling that a homesteader gained no vested Northern California in the 1860s and 1870s," ]oumnl of right until the fee had been paid. Frisbie was not an esp e­ American Studies 23 (August 1989) 215-234., see 216. cially good case by which to measure the Court's attitude 43. Sacramento Union, November 26, 1859, 2 -3; November toward homesteaders. It involved a conflict berween spec u­ 25, 1859, 1-3,; December 8, 1859, 2 -3. lators who purchased land from the holders of an invalid 44. His memoirs, written years later, highlighted his acco m­ Mexican grant and opportunistic squatters who quickly plishments in this respect, Stephen J. Field, Pmonnl Remi­ settled the land after the grant was declared invalid. See, ni.rcmces ofEnriy Days in Cnl~mia, 121-36; also see, John Paul W. Gates, Lnnd and Law in Cnl~mia: Essays on Lnnd Norton Pomeroy, Some Account of the Work ofStephen]. Policies (Ames, Iowa: Iowa Stare University Press, 1991) Field (rpt. 1881, Littleton, Co: Fred B. Rothman & Co., 209-28. 1986), 20-30. On the basis of a Wesrlaw search, I estimate 54. Altn Cal~mia, December 24,1859, 4 -1; Sacramento Un­ that Field wrote about s ixry-five opinions in cases dealing ion, November 25.1859, 1 -3. with Mexican land grants. For an example of Field's later 55. Sacramento Union November 26, 1859, 2-3, reporting on favoritism toward grant holders opinions, see Hormby 11. Biddle Boggs. United States, 77 US (10 Wall) 224 (1870). For his att i­ 56. Crampton, "The Opening of the Mariposa Mining R e­ tude regarding squatters, see Van Reynegnn IJ. Bolton, 95 U. gion, 1849-1859," 263-65; Newell D . Chamberlain, The S. 33 (1877). Admirers maintained that Field's record r e­ Cnll of Gold: Tme Tales 011 the Gold Road to Yosemite flected his superior intellect, devotion to principle, creative (Mariposa, Ca: the Gazette Press, 1936), 11 L 112; San john C. Fremont and The Biddle-Boggs Case 21

Francisco Evening Bulletin, December 15. 1859, 4 -2. Beha11ior on the 011r.rlt111d Tmil (San Marino CA: The 57. Nevins, Fremont, 583-601; na, The Great Libel Cme: Op­ Huntington Libraty, 1980): Also see, John Phillip Reid, dyke liS. Weed (New York: The American News Company, Policing the El.tpham: Crime, Punishmmt, and Socittl Reba II­ 1865). ior on the Ql,r.rbwd Trail (San Marino CA: The 58. Fremont to David Dudley Field, Sept. 26, 1878; Fremont Huntington Library, 1997). to Stephen J. Field September 27, 1878, Field -Musgrave 62. New York Times, May 19, 1870. Although Justice Miller Collection, Special Collections Duke University. wrote the Frisbie opinion, some California homesteaders 59. na, "The Gold Key Court or the Corruptions of a Majority insisted on attributing the outcome to Field. Shortly after of it," A copy of this pamphlet is held at the Huntington the decision, a lawyer namc::d W. Hastings petitioned the Library, it is signed "Ex-Supreme Court Broker," and has U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Field and Cali­ no date. It includes charges relating to a variety of other fornia federal district judge Ogden Hoffman. According to land cases, including the San Fmncisco cases. Field, Hastings was a man carrying a grudge. Less than a 60. PR, 108-09, Stephen J. Field to J. DeBarth Shorb, Oct o­ year earlier, in an unrelated incident, Hoffman had dis­ ber 27, 1886, Huntington Library. 61. barred Hastings from pracricing law in Califomia federal 61. John Phillip Reid, Lmo for the Elephallf: Property and Social courts.