The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-08
SWAMP LANDS.
the General Land 0fice-What the Swamp
Lands OF California Are Worth.

WASHINGTON, March Z, 1873.
The following is the full text OF the material
portion OF a letter addressed by the Commissioner
OF the General Land once to the Surveyor Gen.
eral Of California, just made public, establishing
several very important principles in regard to
swamp land grants to the various States, under the
act OF July 20, 1866. The questions now decided
arose in reviewing the action OF the Surveyor Gen.
eral OF California large tract Of alleged swampy
land known as Big Meadows, and situated in the
valley among the Sierra Nevada Mountains
Commissioner Drummsnd says:-In. your report
you refer to the altitude Of the lands under con-
sideraton: AS some point was made by attorneys
and considered by you as reason for rejecting the
claim of the state in the Sierra Valley case, and
also in that OF the Mountain Meadows, again
it makes no difference how high or elevated lands
may be, If they are in fact swampy or overlooked,
and rendered thereby unfit for cultivation, the
State is entitled to them under The law Lands OF
very great altitude may be subject to overflow and
rendered unfit for cultivation by water nowng
from surrounding lands that still higher, while
very low lands may be perfectly drained, so as to
be dry and susceptible OF cultivation. Marshes and
lakes are found In the most elevated regions and
dry lands In low valleys; therefore, each case
must be decided upon the facts. The question to
be considered and determined is not one of alti-
tude but Of quality. and II elevated lands are
found to be swampy or overnswed and thereby
rendered unfit for cultivation they must be
awarded to the State under the grant; and If low
lands are found to be dry the claim OF the State
must be rejected in other words, the right OF the
state TO lands, whether nigh or low, depends upon
their quality
Another point urged by the attorneys and con.
sidered by you as cause for rejecting the claim OF
the State, ls that the lands produce wild grass,
whichis valuable for pasturage and hay. The natural
productions have no bearing upon the question,
except as evidence tending to show the character
OF the lands; and the fact that the lands produce
wild grass fit for pasturage or hay is not evidence
Tor or against their swampy character, unless we
take into consideration the kind of grass produced
Some kinds OF grass grow on dry lands only
S wGs others grew on swamy over
considered in this connection is not whether lands
in their natural state produce soaething Of value,
to be rendered thereby unfit for cultivation. II
they are they go to the State under the swamp
productions may be; but II they are In fact dry
they do not inure to the State although they may
ne Be sry anae o is its snd
grasses or cranbeIries and yet be clearly
and usGagestil ea swampy or overnowed
reclaimed Under such circumstances it
would be absurd to class. such lands AS dry, and
ject the claim of the State simply because timber
grass cranberries grow thereon without culti-
Walton, and are more or less valuable. cranberry
marsh may, while in its natural state, enrich its
owner, and yet be so swampy to render 1t i'm
possible to till or cultivate the land On the other
hand, a tract OF land that is perfectly dry may be
unproductive and utterly worthless; therefore l
think 1t is clear that while the natural state or
condition Of the land is to be considered as deter
nature Of it's natural productions areslot matters
for consideration except SO far as they may be evil
Another point urged III these cases, which are of
q similar character, against the CLAIM or the State,
is that IL the lands should be drained irrigation
would become necessary 10 the production OF
crops. This is q virtual admission that the lands
are now swampy, and cannot see how irrigation
anything else necessary to the cultivation Of
the lands alter reclamation or drainage affect
the right OF the State to them, under the swamp
grant, If they are swamp or avernewed in their
natural state. The attorney opposed to the State
asserts IN one Of his arguments that irrigation
is a part Of cultivation. in this hes is I'M
dOubtedly correct, and therefore Ii would be lust
as unreasonable to decide that the lands are not
swanpy, because 1t will become necessary plough
productive, as II would decide that they are net
swamp lands, because irrigation viii become neces-
sary Tor the same purpose. i will not devote
further time to these genera!ities, but proceed
consideration OF the fact. The testimony fails to
show that other crops than grass could not be pro-
duced II the land was reclaimed. On the contrary,
II Is In evidence in all cases investigated in regard
TO similar lands such as the Sierra Valley and
the Mountain Meadows, as well as the land
now under consideration, that COED crops OF pc ta-
toes oats beans, peas barley &c. and even wheat,
can be grown successfully, and had been SO grown
on such lands as were free from water early IN the
season. After careful examination ef the evidence
Commissioner Drummond approves OF the Cali
fornia surveyor Generals decision, that some six
thousand two hundred and eighty acres Of the tract
In controversy are not swamp and overlooked
within the meaning Of the Swamp Land act, and
that $50 acres are swamp lands.
In regard TO the remaining 1910 acres Commits
siOner Drummond reverses Surveyor General Har-
denburghs decision and decides that they also are
proved to be so overlooked in majority OF seasons
as to be unit fer cultivation, and must be awarded
OF the Central Pacific Railroad Company, as much
land involved IN similar controversies will be IN.
Guided in It's land grants II not patented to the
State oil California as swamp.