The Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1865-1870, 1869-02-24
EXTRACT FROM THE SURVEYOR
GENERALS REPORT.

GENERALS REPORT.
By request of the late Surveyor Gen
eral (Marlette) We publish the follow
ing:
| REMARKS PRELIMINARY TO A con-
| sIDkRATIoN OF THE LAND ACT
| OF APRIL %, 1867.
| In view of the fact, which appears from
the foregoing exhibit, that prior to the close
of 1856, almost nothing had been done to Sc
cure to Nevada the vast benefit she was enti-
tied to receive under the muni6cent grants
of land from the United States, the laws
hitherto passed to provide for the selection OF
lands having been almost wholly disregarded;
and in view of the fact that the most valua-
be lands subject to selection were rapidly
losing their value from removal Of timber and
wood, or were rapidly passing beyond the
reach of the State the Legislature during
the Special Session passed an Act to inaugu-
rate 4 rapid sy stem Of selection and sale.
| The Bill served as a basis for most of the
| Act was drawn by a man OF unquestioned
integrity and of great theoretical and practice
al knowledge Of the laws. regulations and
decisions in force concerning the donation,
selection and sale Of lands under the various
grants.
1t was considerably modified but not al
4
the Legislature regarded most OF the lands in
the State as of so little value that they took
but little interest in the fate Of the bill, but
nearly all appeared to be aware of and ap-
preciate the fact that TO realize much benefit
from the land grants the Stale mus, as fas as
might be practicable, enter into successful
competition with the General Government in
in dispo>ing of land, and this aud desire 10
reasonably protect the occupant, possessor or
n
the key to the Act.
To what extent the Act has beer a success
or otherwise, and how far its failure has been
due to defects in the Act, and how far due to
other causes l may endeaTor, partially, to
show, and shall recommend some amend
ments approved BY my judgment.
As soon as obtained, a certified copy Of the
Act was furnished 10 aud published i'll the
Virginia Enterprise, and fifty copie, pro-
cured for distribution to County Surveyors
and Assessors, and others interested in
knowing the provisions Of the Act.
1t was also published by authority" in
the Virginia Ircspass. The Act was imme
dlately assailed through portion of the pub
lie press and otherwise, as thiering Act.
as " Unconstitutional, as being in - oDpo-
sitlon to the laws Of Congress" ETC., and
persons were cautioned against purchasing
lands under its provisions.
1t was represe n,ed by some as mass Of
obscurity and contradiction and rumors of an
irrepressible conflict of opinions concerning
some Of its plainest provisions between the
Board of Regents and the Register, and The
ominous silence ofthe Board for nearly FIVE
months from the passage of the Act, aPpea
ed to support suck representations. and did
not tend to establish or restore public conf
dence. During those five months was Hcn
orally ignorant as to what portions Of the Act
the Board and myself could agree upon, and
upon what We should disagree, except 90 far
as could obtain knowledge from CONVERSE
ton with a single member Of the Board, who
did not always know the opinion ofthc other
members.
than five months from the passage Of tie
Act,) l received and accepted the first invi i
ton to NEE. the Board there then remained
but four months in which to select the 25,-
600 acres under the Public Building and
Penitentiary Grants, as the time expired
January LIST, 1865. 1t has been extended by !
the Act of June Sth, 1861
At this meeting four positions were assun-
ed to all of which was opposed, viz:
Fir>t-Floatiny land warrants should not
be issued. |
Second-Lands selected at the request Of
individuals should not be advertised for seal ,
ed proposals.
Thiri-The 10th and Seth sections could
not and should not be sold without being adj
veriised for sealed proposals.
Fourth-No expenses incurred under the
Act could or should be paid as provided in
Section II of the Act.
The maintenance Of the first position has,
in my opinion, resulted very dislstrousy o.
the interests of the State, and somewhat So TO ,
the interests Of persons who desire to pur-
chase lands from the State.
The secnnd is in accordance with what
think ought to have been the law, but plain
" is not.
The third and fourth regarded as contrary
to the law and have been SO declared by the
Supreme Court.
The fourth was believe advocated BY but
one member of the Board of Regents. yet
he persistent and too often successful effort
to delay or pre,ent payment Of necessary
expenses, has obstructed full realization Of
he benefit anticipated under the law. But
IS should fail III the attempt to do this sub
ect justice l will not make the effort.
A fifth point Of difference arose at a later
Law. l had received evidence that certain
9Th and 36th sections were probably quite
worth much more than 81 50 per
cre, and reported the same to the Board of
Regents in orIer that higher price might be I
ixed by said Beard on said sections, but as
he Board failed TO do so, and as l received
N fcrmatinn that the Roa rd doubted its ripht