The Placer herald., 1855-12-15
The Superior Court and State Officers.

descended from the character of Judge and
assumed that of the pot-house politician. AS
much has been said in relation to the conduct
Of the Judge and State Officers, we have
taken the trouble to enquire after the fault,
and we must say that we do not regard the
conduct of the Court as very creditablc to it.
But, we will give the facts and leave our
readers to Judge. Previous to giving the
facts in relation to the pending cases before
the Supreme Court we deem it proper to
state that Judge Shatuck has an old grudge
against one of the State Oficers-Comptrol-
er Bell-and that he seems disposed to have
his revenge nolenS volens.
1t appears that Judge Stattuck, a few weeks
after the present Comptroller took the oath
of office, in 1884, appeared before him with
a roll of Peter Smith titles to property in
San Francisco, upon which he insisted on
paying the twenty-five per cent due from the
city to the State, hoping by making the pay
ment proposed to secure the property, as
against both, notwithstanding he knew well
that but 1.-THE of its real value had been
paid for it. The Comptroller, after consulta-
ton with counsel, offered to take the twenty
five per cent. on the Peter Smith sale, and
thus defeat the favoritc object of Shattuck
Tie decision Of the Comptroller greatly en-
ragged Shattuck, and in the Office Of the
Comptroller he used language which he was
assured by that officer he would no longer
hear when Shattucll left the Office, and ever
since, 1t is understood, has been the bitter
opponent Of the Comptroller.
Having accounted for the prejudcal Ian
guage of the Judge, we will now give facts
relating to the case Of Guy ct al VS.. Richard
son.
In the first place, it is we'll known fact
that Guy, or those associated with him in
the prosecution of the State Officers, nepG
pad one cent 10 tie State for her interest in
the property in question, and this day have
not got scratch of a pen from any agent Of
the State investing them with title to the in
terest Of the State. When this property was
first offered for sale by the Board of State
Land Commissioners, these claimants, aided
by the Superior Court and wrts of injunc-
tions, defeated the sale, and thus deprived
the State of not less than one hundred thou
sand dollars, which would certainly have
been realised from it if the States interest
had then been disposed Of
The State officers, aware that the State
had an unquestlonabIe interest III this pro-
pertv, again offered it for sale, with a view of
realising from its sale its value, or near it, to
be applied in payment of State indebtedness.
On the day Of sale, these claimants, by mis-
representations in relation to the title of the
State, prevented the property from selling
for anything like It's value. 1t is thus un-
denaby true that the unwarrantable inter
ference Of the Superior Court, and that too
Il, .,11s Il Al.
State has been injured in her finances to an
amount exceeding one hundred thousand
dollars. The State has the same interest in
the property in question, that she has in
other property for which the citizens of San
Francisco have frec y paid their money, thus
acknowledging that the State has an interest
in the property. Now we ask, why should
Abel Guy, or those cooperating with him,
be permitted to take from the State an i'm
mensly valuable property, without paying for
it as others have done? We maintain that
the State Officers have acted correctly, and
only regret that the conduct Of Guy & Co.,
has lost to the State such large sum Of
money; and we hope that legal proceedings
for recovering damages to the full amount
lost to the State, will be instituted by the
State Officers.
As it is these distinguished patriots that
Judge Shattuck assisted by Judge Satterlee,
who, be it remembered, granted the first
writ Of injunction and prevented the sale of
the property by the old Board of State Land
Commissioners. Well, Guy e Co.. are not
ungrateful; they appear not to have forgotten
their faithful friend who rendered them good
service when on the Bench. And here for
the present we leave the Abel Guy case,
with the assurance that we will again in due
time, revert to it.
Now for Richardson, who is nothing more
nor less, we are assured, than Guys near
friend, so that after all is is another Guy
case-not Guy Faux, but a Guy as artful as
fox. This man Richardson, it appears,
purchased certain property at States sale,
more than one year ago. To this property,
the old Board Of Commissioners executed a
deed and held it for months, ready to be de-
livered to him as soon as he paid the pur
chase money, but no Richardson appeared
On the last day Of their term of Office, which
expired by limitation Of law, the old Board
erased their names from the deed prepared
for Richardson, and placed it il the safe Of
Messrs. Selover q Sinton, where it can now
be seen.
The State Officers, after their organization
as Land Board, directed their agent to as
certain and report what property had not
been paid for, and what had never been offer"
ed for sale The agent performed his duty;
he ascertained that Richardson had neither
paid for his property or received deed, and
he reported accordingly. The Board direct
ed Richardson's, with other property, to be
advertised for sale. The notice Of sale was
published in three or more papers in San
Francisco, but no Richardson appeared until
the morning of the sale, when he appeared
and expressed willingness to pay for his
r.ronerty and dead hut raflsed to nav the