Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-02-08
THE CALIFORNIA FIVE PER CENT
CLAIM AGAIN.

III Is reported 10y telegraph that MI
nority of the House committee on public
lands has reported adversely 60 the claim
of California for five per cent. of the net
proceeds of the sales of public lands in this
State. II is not the first time that the claim
has been opposed. The Legislature and
Governor of California mem0rialized Con-
gress upon the subject rs early as 1853
In 1873, We made an appeal to the general
land Office through an agent appointed by
the State Surveyor-General and confirmed
thereafter by the Legislature. In 1879, a
bill was introduced to grant California the
percentage as has been done in the cases
of all the public land States. Nothing
came of it, it being objected that Califor-
MIA slept upon her rights twenty-eight
years and had come into the Union with
out a condition attached to the Act of
admission relating to the claim. In 1881
the Legislature again memorialized Con-
gress upon the subject and bills were in
troduced in the Senate and the House to
grant the prayer of the petition. but both
failed, as also an amendment to Il general
bill that was intended to give recognition
To the claim. Various Congressional activi-
ties concerning the matter followed. and
in 1888 third bill was introduced in the
House and in the Senate also, rec ognizing
and allowing the claim. Upon the House
bill the committee on public lands re-
ported favorably. That report recited
that of all public land States Califor-
MIA alone had been excluded, though upon
her admission the same obligations and
conditions relative TO sale and disposal of
public lands had been imposed upon her
as upon the other public land States. The
report set forth that the public land laws
were not extended to California until
March, 1853, and no sales were made prior
to July, 1857. As the Legislature of
1858 memorialized Congress to include
California in the percentage allowances
1t is clear that the claim of Mr.. Julian in
the Forty-fifth Congress, that California
had slept upon her rights, was not sound
In 1886, in the,Forty-ninth Congress, Sena-
tor Stanford introduced Il bill to pay Cali
fornia the five per cent and it received
favorable report, as also did a similar bill
in the House, but neither bill ever reached
the point of passage. At the present ses-
sion Senator Stanfords revenue bill passed
the Senate
We are now told that the objections
raised to the bill now before the House
recognizing the equitable character of the
claim, are, that California has received
more than her share of the bounty given
public land States. We do not see that
this cuts any figure in the case; the ques-
ton is upon the fairness of the claim, not
the amount of land given independent of
It, These grants stand alone; they were
not given in lieu of CALIFORNIA; omission
from the list of percentage grant States
nor was any question of tina: percentage
involved IN any way whatever. 1t is OBJ !
lected that other States receive their per-
oentage only upon sales made after the
passage of the Act, while for California il
Is claimed that her claim shall date back
to the first sales But it is true that Cali
fornia made application for the grant
within year after sales began. 1t is also
true tina. in the cases of some of the other
States the grant was contemporaneous
with the date of admission and that it has
been the uniform policy of Congress to
make these grants to the States Califor-
MIA was admitted with specific expression
that she came in upon equal footing with
all the other States in all respects. 1t is
finally objected that the State is rich and
that her school fund is not in need of aid.
But the same was true OF Connecticut in
1871 when she received her first grant.
and of New York, Pennsylvania and Vir-
ginia in the same year, and of Minnesota,
Illinois, Colorado, Iowa and Missouri.
The equity of the claim is strong and
stands independently of our needs and is
based upon the uniform policy of the Gov
eminent. lfnothing more forcible can be
advanced against it than the reasons re-
cited, 1t ought TO prevail in the House rs
it has already in the Senate.