I’m as dumb as lemons when it comes to law and such, but may I ask your opinion one more thing?
In 1864 Nevada became a state, and I understand the conditions in “The Ordinance”, but in 1866 northern Arizona territory was shaved south down to the Colorado River and given to Nevada (to punish Arizona for siding with the Confederates). This new territory included most of Clark County. If the new state was given that new land by the feds, and this was outside of the original conditions for statehood, i.e., “all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government and could never be taxed by the state. These provisions would be “irrevocable” without the consent of Congress and of the people of Nevada,” wouldn’t Nevada then own Clark County and not the feds?
“...in 1866 northern Arizona territory was shaved south down to the Colorado River and given to Nevada...wouldn’t Nevada then own Clark County and not the feds...”
Since the US Congress had authority over the land, I assume that authority transferred with the land. The act itself protected mining rights of individuals in the land, but doesn’t mention anything else. I doubt the Arizonans who owned property in that area lost their ownership, or that Nevada took title to all 32,000 sq miles.
If Congress did NOT have the authority to take land from Arizona and give it to Nevada, then the land would still be part of Arizona, not Clark County. If anything, I think that strengthens the case that the federal government and US Congress owned and controlled the land, to the extent that a simple act of Congress could take away 11,000 square miles from Arizona (and 21,000 from Utah) and make it part of Nevada.
There are probably court cases somewhere that deal with it, but I’m not sure how to do a search for them.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=74
http://www.nevadaobserver.com/Boundaries%20of%20Nevada%20%281881%29.htm