The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1885-07-11
THE RAILROAD LANDS.

On"er tne meaning OF "A Land
| Question. A Complaint Answered, ,
the N. O. City Item prints our article
of two weeks ago and adds the fol.
lowing:
Regarding the serious discrepancies
mentioned IN the article, Register Darrall
states that the lists furnished the State
Auditor were carefully compiled and
compared from the records of his office.
and that the $4,000 acres in excess, for
which the company holds patents, have
not been recorded at his office, although
ne had repeatedly requested President
Wheelock to record them, and they ap-
pear on the records as vacant.
AS to the Is, 600 acres, more or less for
which the railroad company holds no
patents, they were duly entered by them
at the Registers Office, but as the patents
were delayed (they are probably part of
the 3OO,OOO acres for which the company
has, as yet, been unable to obtain patents)
the company probably does not care to
pay taxes on them, and therefore dis
claims property. These lands are, by
virtue OF the company's entry, selection
Withdrawn from the market, and virtu-
ally IN possession of the company, which,
therefore, as DIR. Darrall informed the
State Auditor, should pay the taxes on
them. DIR. Darrall, however, believes
that the amount of these lands is not as
large as stated, according to the limits OF
the parish, as recorded in his office, which
may materially differ from the maps in
possession of the parish officials.
1t Is curious fact that Grant parish,
1rCf IN, x-l.r n. :. =
turn up, is also one of those which failed
to pay the land Office for expenses in
Cured, only So. DIR. Darrall holds a tele- |
gram from State Auditor Steele request |
ing the forwarding OF the Grant parish |
pay, and also letter from the president |
Of the police jury Of that parish. stating |
that that body refused point blank to |
redeem its former promise to pay. The |
lists forwarded to Grant parish, besides
the railroad grants, also contained all the
private entries since 1869, amounting to
many thousand acres.
We are perfectly wiling to accept
Register Darralls explanation MS to
bow the discrepancies occurred be-
ween the extract from his Office and
he lists furnished by the railroad
agent. but he is certainly in error in
that the lob, l20 acres listed
y the company in Grant parish are
My $4,000 acres or less. If he is
light and we are wrong it is high
lme the public had correct informa-
ion on the subject. II
On one point we are sure, however, {
nd that is the Register is wrong in
early every statement in the last
aragraph in the above extract, which
ppears to be sort of synopsis of ,
n interview. The parish of Grant :
as necer had an abstract or list of en- !
'ies acithin its limits since 1t has been
parish. Our police jury at its April i
ting, in response to letter from !
Ir. Darrall, appropriated SOS "for {
,e purpose of obtaining complete
ostract of all lands entered, granted 4
I'D patented in Grant parish; but a
lie money is not to be sent unless it i,
a complete abstract of all lands A
ltered in Grant parish" We quote r
ON the record, the italics only be- a
g ours. There was no promise to a
y" on the part of the police jury. Il
ney. wanted a complete abstract Of b
nds entered in this parish, and
ere willing to pay $25, or 500 if 81
ed be, for what they wanted. The q,
stract furnished is not only what r,
ey did not want. but it is not what q,
r. Darrall claims it to be, j. e. 'all n
g private entries since 1859" AZ nj
: careful examination of its con- =,
ats, we fnd that, in addition to the
llroad lands, the abstract only con-
ms the following entries: wi
vome. 4cres. Entered N
|. \; Fish ;-........ 1922 Jany. Is, 1888 ~,