Weekly Trinity journal., 1874-01-24


the resolutions. Promising let me say
J.: w. perfectly evident there was and is
a power behind tha y emily majority
on this matter which it cannot resist and
dare not face. This is evident in the fail
ure OF the supporters of the resolution to
advance a single argument in reply to
the telling truths uttered by Bowers,
zimmerman and Ferguson. The leaders
had declared there was railroad skunk
in that wood pile and before that decar-
alton all else must give way. The stu
alton is simple. Senator Sargent has in
troduced bill designed to put a stop to
the well known system of swamp land
swindles in this State. The whole diff
Guilty has been in correctly defining what
i, and what is not swamp land under the
Arkansas Act, the provisions Of which
were early extended to this State. 1t
provides that all lands not within the
definition fixed, and not listed to the
State or segregated shall revert to the
Government for pre-emption entry, etc.
1t has been well settled that the grant Of
lands to railroad companies could not
and never can include in the drawn lands
and hence the " Railroad grab " is a false
cry. The "cry" was, however, started
and the resolution condemning the bill
came up in the Assembly. The fact that
/ the General Land office the day before
declared the Sierra Valley lands not
swamp and restored them to the public
domain, thus deciding one of the chief
cases of the many swamp swindles, bad
an effect upon the Assembly and the res
olution passed by 81 to Is. | will now
briefly make
SKETCH OF THE DEBATE
And thus fairly present the matter to
your readers.
Mr.. KLoTz opposed the resolution be-
cause it favored the land monopoly. He
cited cases of twenty-year settlers on
land pre- empted gobbled up by the swamp
land ring. Lands at the foot Of Mt. Las
sen 5000 feet above the sea had been
claimed as swamp. Personally he would
| lose land by the bill, but knowing it right
lie was willing to lose it.
Mr.. BOWERS knew the bill was right.
These lands not actually swamps should
revert to the Government and be thrown
open to pre-emption. He read three
/ lines from the Surveyor Generals report.
"A large area of land has also been sur
vcyed and returned to this Office as swamp
and ovcrilowed which is not shown to be
such, either by State segregations or by
the United States maps" The interests
of the people demanded the passage Of
the Sargent bill.
Mr.. MEYERS favored the resolution as
by State legislation the swindles could be
corrected.
Mr. FERGUSON. The bill cannot be in
favor of any monopoly, vested rights are
protected by the bill. The land monop-
oily was the most fearful Of all our evils,
securing to large land holders the best
land in the State.
Mr.. HILL had the other day voted for
| the resolution. Recent investigation had
convinced him that Sargent's bill was
right; he would now support it.
Mr.. CoGGINs said the extract from the
Surveyor Generals report, referred to
lands which Sargent's bill would not at
/ feet, and so, too, with the Tide Land Re
! clamation Company, IA huge monopoly.
! The passage Of the resolution would be u
protest against possessing actual set
tiers, who had not yet secured title to
lands acknowledged to be swamp lands
Mr.. PAULsELL took the same view as
did Mr.. Meyers. He admitted the land
system had been badly managed, but
thought the Legislature competent to
correct abuses. He thought the State
could pass pre-emption law. (Oh).
Mr.. AMMERMAN said the passage of
the bill could affect no mans right
| Thousands of acres had been taken up as
swamp, which were no more 50 than the
tops OF the Sierra Nevada mountains.
The bill was to rescue these lands from
the hands Of men who would confscate
them. The State had no homestead law
and Sargent's bill, to restore these lands
to the public domain, was the only way
to accomplish the good desired. Under
the Sargent bill there would be no dis
pute as to lands to which title had been
acquired.
Mr.. BOWER said when the Government
granted lands to the railroad, they eX-
cepted all lands that had been reserved
for any other purpose, and no one expect
ed that they would ever fall within The
railroad grant. The Swamp Land Act
was applied to California years before any
grant to railroad had been made 1t
was clear, and the Courts had uniformly
held, that land once excepted from a
grant will not by subsequent definition of
its character revert so as to be within the
grant. Mr.. Bowers is right, and no
Government officer but will repeat this.
All lawyers know it. Reversions after a
grant, and especially excluded, revert to
the original owner and not to the grantee.
-CoR.l
Mr.. CREssLER would vote for the reso-
ton simply because he was unwilling to
confess to the Government that California
could not manage the gift
This practically closed the debate, and
embraces every point made in it.
THE FREIGHT AND FARE BILL.