Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-07-20
RECLAIMED SWAMPS.
THE OWNERS OBJECT TO THE ASSESS
MENTS LEVIED THEREON.
Relative Values of River Front and TuIe
Lands-Swamp Land Farmers
Air Their Grievances.

Yesterday was field day with the
County Board of Equalization. A large
number of farmers from the swamp land
districts in the southern end of the county
had been summoned to appear before the
Board, to testify in regard to the valuations
placed upon reclaimed tule and river front
lands on the islands. The following appli-
cations for reductions were made
Ell Upham-On 373 acres in Swamp
Land Surveys $50 and 596; application to
strike eff assessment on said land on the
ground of its having been doubly assessed
last year, argued and taken under advise
ment.
H. E. Allender-On 934 acres in Swamp
Land Survey 407, on Andrus Island, from
800 to s45 per acre.
Locke IL Lavenson-On 400 acres in
Swamp Land Survey 764, from $4,000 to
$20,050.
The Board then took up for action the
application of John Miller for reduction
from SO to $50 per acre on 100 acres in
Swamp Land Survey No. 355.
A member of the Board remarked that
this case was the king-pin to the whole lot.
Mr.. Miller testified in support of his pc
tition. He claimed that his land was all
originally tule, and thought that no land of
that character should be assessed at over
$50 per acre. His land is equal in value to
that of any of that character. He regarded
the assessment on tule lands unfair as COM
pared With that on plain lands. All ne
asked was even-handed justice at the hands
of the Board. He produced q telegram
showing that the average assessment of
tule lands in San Joaquin county is about
$40 per acre.
4
considerable length in regard TO the value
of the land of Mr.. Miller and surrounding
tracts.
Sol Runyon was called IS a witness, and
in reply 10 questions asked said the 100
acres of Miller's land, the assessment upon
which was under consideration, was under
the best system of reclamation in vogue in
that section, but he did not consider that
they had reached perfection, by any means.
in their system Of reclamation. He would
discriminate between land in different To-
cslities. 1t would be difficult for him to
say what any mans land is worth. His
own land is not for sale; be had estab-
lished home there, and did not care TO
sell. He had no complaints to make of his
own assessment of 1925 per acre, but he
thought all the land there was assessed
rather too high.
G. A. Knox testified that the Miller land
under consideration was reclaimed tule
hand. The high front land along the river
banks was, in his opinion, more valuable
than the reclaimed land Such land would
be worth as five to one for fruit purposes.
The front land is worth $3.50 per acre. while
the tule lands, always uncertain for farm
ing or truit-groWing, are not worth in his
opinion, $50 per acre. There is no such
thing as establishing cash value upon
land
john Crew, who resides two miles from
Miller's land, testified that he regarded il
as frst-e!ass tuls land. Before il was re-
claimed it was the worst he ever saw
Money and labor expended thereon has
made the land valuable. So long as the
water can be kept of the land will raise
good crops.
John NJ. Gleason testified that in 1858 he
went on the 100 acres under consideration,
and put in TWO years trying TO clear 1t OF
willows, etc, but gave it up and aban-
dOned II. To-day Mr.. Miller has it under
excellent cultivation, but it is in danger of
being flooded He thought it worth 500
per acre, that is he did not think it would
sell for more than that-peThaps SIS or $50.
Mr.. Runyou had offered witness four acres
of tule land for one Of river front land.
Witness would grade the land in that To-
CaIity according to its elevation; the high
ANN-@NA
land.
The matter was submitted and taken
under adyisement.
In the matter of the application of the
San Francisco Savings Union, tor a reduc-
ton from $50 to S45 per acre on its lands in
the Pearson District, W W Britain was
called to testify. He testified that the land
Is all tuie land, and some 400 acres is under
water in the winter season. The Savings
Tv,ss. r 81
acre rental, while, if the land was worth
$50 it sbGuld yield from IS to $40 per acre.
Last year it was assessed at S27 per acre,
ana this year has been raised to $50. A
portion of the land has been sold at $40
per acre. About $3.50 coo has been ex-
pended on the property. Mr.. Britain ad-
mitted that a year ago. when II vas sought
to run road upon this same property bis
company wanted $500 an acre for the strip
desired.
Submitted and taken under adyisement.
In the matter Of the application of John
NJ. Gleason for "a reduction of his assess
ment from $50 to $50 per acre, and on i'm
proVements from $500 10 81 coo, Mr.. Glea-
son said that his land, while Of as good
quality as that Of Mr. Ruuyon, is not as
eiglbly situated on the slough, and has not
shipping facilities at all seasons.
The application of John Crew for re-
duction from $50 to $50 on 81 acres Of tule
land, in the same locality, was next heard
and submitted.
G. A. Knox, whose land is also on An
drus Island, next testified in support of his
application for reduction from $50 to $50
per acre on 24i acres. He described at
length the location and character Of his
land and of others in that vicinity. He
said that in wet seasons nearly all of his
land is flooded But for his small strip of
front land be would not have been able TO
remain on the land As in the other cases,
the matter was submitted.