Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-01-21
THE CALIFORNIA FIVE PER CENT
CLAIM

THE CALIFORNIA FIVE FER CENI.
CLAIM.
The House Committee on Public Lands
has instructed Representative McKenna to
report favorably his bill to pay to Califor-
mia five per cent. of the cash sales of public
lands within this State. 1t ought to be
that we could take it for granted that the
bill viii pass, and our school fund be thus
augmented nearly half a million Of dol
lars The bill about to be reported Is the
same which last session had and now is
receiving the attention of Governor Stan
ford in the Senate. The hope that the bill
will pass may suffer defeat from the fact
the Committee on Public Lands reported
favorably upon a similar bill in 1886. That
bill Senator Stanford vigorously pushed in
the Forty-ninth Congress.
The history of this claim of the State i:
interesting. From the organization of the
Government it has been its policy to grant
to the States, on admission, or subsequent
some percentum of the net proceeds of the
cash sales of public lands within each
State. California was admitted on the
same footing with other States and there
were imposed upon her obligations like
those upon all other States. She was
bound by the Act of admission not to in
terfere with the primary disposal of the
public lands and to pass no Act to affect
the title OF the United States to them
California is the only public-land State in
the Union to which the rebate on sales Of
public lands has not been made. 1t is now
nearly thirty eight years since she was ad,
mitted, and thirty years since public-land
sales began here, but to this date our rep,
resentatives have been unable to bring
Congress to a true sense of the justice of our
claim for the five per cent, though ii
was presented a decade ago. Our Leg
islature has memorialized Congress upon
the subject over and over again, but with.
out much apparent effect. In the Forty,
sixth, Forty-seventh, Forty-eighth and
Forty-nInth Congresses, bills were pre-,
sented to settle the claim, two of them be-
ing favorably reported, but no further ac-
ton could be secured.
The claim is an equitable one of the
strongest character. 1t is the only one of
its character that the Federal Govern
ment has refused to give deserving atten-
General Land Office, in response to Repre-
sentative Berry, in 1884, stated that as
the Act admitting California int, the
Union did not provide for the payment of
any percentage of the proceeds OF the
sales of public lands within her borders
no account therefor had been STATED in
the Land Office in favor of the State
This appears to have been the technical
objection that has impeded the claim
throughout, though whenever advanced it
has been in timid and apologize manner,
as If consciousness that the injustice of
the objection carried shame with it.
Commissioner Mcfarland, in February,
1881, at The request of Mr.. Berry, calcu-
lated the amount that would then be due
the State. He said: "The amount that
wcHld he affected by the passage of the
bill referred to, not including the amount
derived from any location or disposal of
the public lands other than cash sales, in
Guiding mineral land, to June 80, 1888, is
S9,l6S,690 13, and five per cent. thereof is
S45S,434 so"
1t is one of the strange features of this
claim that California had an agent at
Washington for eight years pushing this
among other claims of the State, and yet
despite the undeniable equities of the case
the backing and energetic labors of our
delegations, and the Indifferent opposition
made to the claim it could not be brought
to a conclusion. According to the report
of Agent Mullan, whose excessive demand
for services in urging California claims
some time ago formed the subject of con-
siderable public and other discussion, the
objection raised in the Forty-fifth Congress
came from the Chairman of the House
Committee on Public Lands. 1t was to the
effect that our claim was of no force in law
or in equity, because the State came into
the Union without such grant or allow
anee attached as 4 condition, and because
we had allowed twenty-eight years to
elapse without pushing it, as if we had
faith in its justice. In the Foriy-seventh
Congress Senator VOORHEES,, of Indiana,
introduced bill to have the Treasury ac-
countarts so state the accounts OF all
the five per cent. allowances, claimed by
public land States then the beneficiary
thereof, that the same should include the
sales made by or for military bounty land
warrants, as well as those made for cash.
the bounty land warrants having always
Heretofore been excluded from such state
ments. 4 House bill for like purpose
had been favorably reported. But in
neither of these bills was California
named. Senator Farley submitted an
amendment to include California, and the
bill so amended passed the Senate in Nav,
1882, but was reconsidered and the matter
laid over.
a full history Of the struggle to secure
allowance of the claim Of this State would
greatly extend our space Enough has,
however, been said to show that the claim
is strong in its equities; that it is the
only one Of its order thus far disallowed.
that it has always had favorable committee
reports; that the only objections raised
worthy Of any consideration are our laehes
in prosecuting the claim, and the fact that
any reference to it was omitted from the
bill Of admission. As to the first, the
newness OF the country, the abnormal con-
ditions Of the early settlement of the State,