Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-05-13
The TuLARR LAND CONFLICT.

lands, in Tulare county, has at last issued
in bloodshed. In all such cases there are
inevitably vehement partisans of both
sides, and in the present instance 1t is as
yet impossible to get at the full details OF
the conflict which has resulted so de-
plorably So far it is not known which
party fired first, but it is beyond doubt
that the Mussel Slough settlers organized
to resist the law, and that they did de-
liberately undertake to overpower and
drive away the officers who were deputed
to execute the judgment of the Courts.
The statement made by the Settlers
League concerning the origin and nature
of the existing difficulty differs radically
from the account given by the railroad
company. The settlers claim that the
corporation sought to make them pay for
the lands they had improved, prices based
on the present value of their improve
ments, and this they denounce as unjust.
The company on its Part asserts that 1t has
made repeated attempts to arrange the
whole matter with the settlers on an equit-
able basis, but that they will not agree to
any reasonable terms. 1t is further asserted
that the prices demanded for the lands IN
dispute were fair, moderate, and in nearly
all cases below what were asked for ada
cent property of similar character and pro-
ductive capacity. The company says 1t
offered the settlers the first opportunity OF
buying or leasing the lands which had been
patented to it, bat that they refused to
buy, lease or vacate. Two years or so ago
some of these lands were sold to third par
ties, among whom were W. J. Crow and
NJ. D. Hartt The men who were holding
the lands, however, refused to recognize
their titles, and consequently suits were
brought by the railroad company, and last
December they were decided in favor of
the company. The settlers then had no
longer any justification for holding out
and as the purchasers of the lands impor-
tuned the company to put them in posses
sion, and as there seemed no probability |
that the situation would grow any better
by waiting, the services of the United
States Marshal were called into requisi- |
ton, and he was proceeding with his
duty when the Settlers League in
terfered, with the lamentable consequences
related. 1t is really not a material point |
whether the settlers or the purchasers of
the lands fired first, for before any firing
was done the settlers had manifested their
intention to resist the authority of the
United States Marshal, and had conse-
quently put themselves outside the law.
To assert, as one journal does, that the
purchasers of the land ought to have with
drawn quietly when they found that their
claims would not be acknowledged, is a
very one-sided way of looking at the case.
1t is presumably the duty of all citizens to
obey the law and the process of the
Courts. The men Crow and Hartt were
proceeding in the performance of what the
Courts had decided to be their rights. The
settlers, on the other hand, were banded
together to defy the law. Why should
those who were acting lawfully retire from
the presence of those who were acting I'M
lawfully
Whatever equities they may have in
other regards, it is perfectly clear that the
Settlers League was acting in defiance of
the law, and that it had no Justification
for its course. Nor can questions of SEN
timent be allowed to obscure the matter
No doubt there is strong tendency in
many quarters to take sides against rail
road company on general principles, and to
believe that whoever resists it must be
entitled to sympathy. But Crow and
Hartt were not railroad men. They were
innocent purchasers who had bought lands
which the Courts bad declared to be theirs
lawfully. They very naturally and rea-
sonably desired to be put in possession of
the lands they had purchased. And when
they went, in company with a United
States Marshal, to take possession they
were met by an armed band which under
took to drive them away. Under such
circumstances the responsibility for what
followed must be placed upon the heads of
those who deliberately defed the law 1t
was their duty to have yielded to the
United States Marshal; not the duty of
the United States Marshal to yield to
them. They had appealed to the Courts,
and the Courts had decided against them.
They had no right then to appeal to arms.
The judgment of the Courts is necessarily
the only authoritative guide to opinion in
matters of this kind, and it has been de-
livered against the Mussel Slough settlers.
Their policy has been alike rash and I'M
wise. They cannot expect to hold the
country against the entire power of the
United States Government, yet they have
declared war against that power. They |
have produced this unfortunate and ire
trievable disaster, for which there was
neither necessity nor excuse. If men can
not obtain what they think are their rights,
by legitimate methods in this country, |
there is no other course open to them. By |
resorting to illegitimate methods they only
make their situation far worse than it was,
and entail upon themselves far more
serious responsibilities. These Mussel
Slough settlers have now made outlaws of |
themselves, and however desperately they
behave, it is certain that they will have
eventually to succumb to the arm of the |
law.
FRENCH FEAR OF COMMUNISM.
1t is intimated that the French Govern