The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-04-13
Old Land Claims.


mittee on private land claims. to-day,
took final action on the Ssntiilan bill,
in It's amended form, and by a vote OF
4 against 8, authorized Burrows to re-
port It 10 the House, with q recon-
mendation for passage. The negative
cote, which was larger than the Cali
fornia delegation expected, was cast
by Paoheco and Steven,oo,' OF Hi
nois, and Martin, of West Virginia
Burrows, of Michigan, Norcross, of
Massachusetts,. voorhees,, of New
Jersey, and Gunter, of Arkansss,
voted FOR the bill, and it Is understood
that the four remaining members OF
the committee, VIZ: Mitchell, of Penn
sylVan;a. Caldwell of Kentucky, Nh
dron, OF Mississippi. and Myers, OF
Indiana, would also have voted
for it had they been pres
ent. The provisions of the
bill, as finally adopted to-day, are
substantially the same that were fully
described in last Mondays dispatches,
the only amendments being verbal
changes which more strictly guard
against disturbing the rights OF San
Francisco property hol1ers, and COL
fine the effect OF the measure to its
avowed purpose of establishing a
claim upon government for an i'm
mense amount of indemnify IL
the form Of land scrip to
equal TIE value of the greater
part of the area of Gan Francisco
at the time when the Santillan grant
was rejected. Pacheco, at the con-
mi,tee meeting, to day, emphsticslly
expressed he unqualified opinion
that the SAu,illan fraud was q fraud
Ia It's incipiency, and that the so
called newly discovered evidence IL
equally manufactured and spurious
He will prepare & minority report
embodying these views. The Cali
iornia delegation are al quite conf
dent that the bill will fail to become
Law.
The secretary OF war, tc-lay,
transmitted to Congress a later from
Gen Wright, chief of engineers, III
relation to the pending bills 10 con
firm the survey OF Pueblo. San Fran
! cisco, and suggesting certain amend
ments thereto which are deemed i'm
| pOIt4nt for the protection of the IL
terests of the United S.ates. General
Wright, In THE, says the generals in
command of the division OF the Pa
cific and the department of Callfor
MIA have, at different times, de-
nounced the survey in question. so
lar as it relates 10 the Presidio Res
ervatiop, as iIanduieEtiy incoT-
rec. General Halleck. Ia 1866
said concerning 1t: 'It app ars
that certain notorious land grsbbers
of this city had formed conspiracy
with some Of the employees of the
United States surveyor generals
Office, for the purpose of getting pos
session OF sOJue 200 or more acres oil
the military reserve at Preside" Gen
Ord, in 1868, wrote: This land,
which would be lost. is worth at least
| 81, eco an acre, and recommend an
earnest protest against survey that
would deprive government Of land so
necessary and useful, which il has
always had aud which the existing
laws and decisions, ii adhered to,
would undoubtedly give it." General
Mcdowell, in strenuousIy obiecling to
the same effect, in January. 1879,
said: sit is difficult for me, even a.
this late day, to write OF this matter
and use only the language of Official
documents. The commissioner of the
general land Office, in letter to the
secretary of war, dated March %.
1871, said he found General Ord's
exceptions to the survey we'll taken
Ia regard to the southeastern corner
OF the Preside reservation. In view
of these objections and the further
fact that the survey is question ex-
lcludes certain low lands, form
ing 3 portion of the military reserva
ton, which are necessary to extend
the works for the defense OF San
Francisco Bay, and also excludes
lands between high and low waite:
and submerged lands IN front of th,
works now built, which, il net re-
tanned, are liable to be sold by the
state OF California and the city of SAP
Francisco to parties who may erect
structures masking the Golden Gate
and harbor of San Francisco from the
FIRE of these works. The chief of en-
gineers thinks that the amendment
suggested in his letter of the 18th
ultlmo may not be adequate to tbs
purpose for which it was intended,
and he row suggests f comprehensive
Amendment.