Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-28
CONFLICTING SE,srEaEHTs.
CITIZENS OF CoLUsA COUNTY DISAGREE
AS TO FACTS.
The Testimony Given in the Suit of the
Central Irrigation District against
the Glenn Estate.

The Testimony Given in the Suit of the
Central Irrigation District against
the Glenn Estate.
We publish below an editorial from the
Colusa Sun of November I'd, edited by Will
S. Green, the engineer of the Central 1rri-
CATION District of Colusa county. Mr..
Green is well known throughout the State,
was one of the parties itigant in the suit
mentioned in the editorial, between the
Central Irrigation District and the Glenn
estate, was interested in the testimony, IS
responsible for his personal statements as
well as those appearing in his paper, and
| we have therefore deemed any information
| from that source perfectly reliable. 1t will
| be seen that Mr.. Green declares thar Mr..
Lusk set up plea on behalf of the Glenn
estate thst on tract of 160 acres it costs
81 20 to produce GENITAL of wheat; that as
the acreage increased the cost of producing
| wheat decreased until it cost only so cents
per GENITAL on large holdings. Mr.. Green
says that on this theory alone the verdict
in favor of the Glenn estate was rendered.
! It was upon these statements that the edi-
torial of the RECoRD-UNIoN of November
| 18th was based.
The communication, which follows the
editorial comments of the Sun, is from f.
c. Lusk, the chief attorney for the Glenn
estate. He declares that no such testi
mony was introduced, and that no such
question was a. issue in the case or was
considered by the jury in arriving at
verdict. We print the editorial and the
communication and for the present leave
the question of fact between Mr.. Green and
| Mr.. Lusk:
From the Colusa Sun, November 12th.l
| It has been the theory that the smaller the
| tract of land the more valuable, and up TO the
adoption of the present Constitution this was
| the theory of assessment. That instrument I'M
dertook to make the assessment equal IN that
regard, but almost everywhere the large tracts
| have the advantage. AT the trial of the con-
| demnation suit of Central Irrigation District
| against the Glenn estate, the defendants set up
| and proved a new state of facts, and on this
state of facts a new deal must be had IN the
matter of assessment. Mr.. Lusk set up plea
that on 160-aere tract it cost 81 20 to produce
| Genital OF wheat and that this cost was reduced
as the acreage increased until 1t cost only fity
| cents to produce Genital OF wheat. He proved
| this theory by nearly all the large lsnu owners
| OF this part OF the State including j. S. Cone,
| R. II. Blossom, H. Kraft John Bidwell, d. NJ.
ReaviS, o. C. Pratt, Colonel George Hager,
John Boggs J. c. Stovall, George Packer ana
| James Baisdon. on this theory and this theory
alone verdict was rendered for $4,000 more
than the proportion of the asking price of the
small owners of land through which the canal
Land must be taxed on g sliding scale be-
tween 100 cents for quarter section TO so cents
for $4,000 acres in profit. That is:
The 50,G0G-acre tract must be taxed two and
fourtenths times as much per acre as the 160-
acre tract.
The verdict of the jury was over four times as
much as the small owners asked for damages,
but we shall be content with the other scale SO
lucidly set out by the counsel for the defense.
The Sun has never yet entered contest that
it did not win in the long run and it VIII win IN
this The large land holders joined to get
money on this theory, and by 1t they must pay
out money.
Mr.. LUsK's STATEMENT.
EDS. RECORD UNION: Attention has been called
to the leading editorial in your issue of Novem-
Der 23d, entitled "Colusa County Fossilism."
| The article is based on testimony said to have
been given in recent suit tried IN the superior
| Court of Colusa county, involving the amount to
| be paid the Glenn estate as damages incurred
| by an irrigation canal passing through 1t. The
| Misrepresentation as TO this suit continuously
| published by interested parties in local Co
lusa paper were regarded OF little Importance as
| long as they come from that source alone, as it
| is understood in that county that their Interior
purpose is to affect witnesses and jurors i'll other
| suits of like nature now pending. But when
| they are naturally perhaps, and Innocently as
sumed to be true and made the text for leader
| in so influential paper as the REcoRD-UNIoN
| it would seem proper that correction should
| be made.
| This was not an action, as your article states,
| brought by the Glenn estate against the lrriga-
ton District but by the latter against the estate
| to condemn a right OF way for a large irrigation
| canal under the law of eminent domain The
| estate owned parallelogramic-shaped tract OF
16, 90 acres, through which the canal is to cross
| in a diagonal direction for six and one-half
miles in a very sinu0us line, there being forty
| five courses in that distance. Under the COnsti-
| tuition, before the right of way could be con-
| demned for public use, the owners OF the land
| must have full and just compensation, inclGd-
! Jog the value of the Us acres actually taken.
and the damages that would accrue to the por-
| ton not sought to be taken by reason OF its
severance. This damage could DE best proved
1 by experts, persons cultiYatlng large tracts OF
| land.
The defendants examined j. S. Cone, r. II.
| Blossom, H Kraft, George Champlin, OF Tehama
county; John Bidwell, D. NJ. Reavis, John
| Crouch, L. II. Mcintosh, D. D. Harris, o. G.
| Pratt, of Butte county; John Bsggs, John Fin
nell. Colonel George Hager G. F. Packer and
| James BalSdon, of Colusa county. They testified
| to the damage resulting from having to erect
| and MAINTAIN necessary bridges, from the diff
| Guilty in moving stock and machinery over the
land, and the injury from having square
shaped tracts of land thrown into irregu-
| lar-shaped fields by the canal, etc, etc. The
| jury rendered a verdict that the property was
| damaged the sum of SIC 900. The jury was COM
posed of representative farmers OF that county,
and while no fault can be found with them, or
with their action, and knowing that they did
| exactly what seemed to them right, there is no
hesitation in saying that the verdict does not
half compensate the owners of the land for their
actual damages It being barely sufficient to
| erect the necessary bridges on the canal and
| provide e sinking fund for their repair and
maintenance, to say nothing of other elements
| of damages. That presents only an ordinary
| litigation of 70 public interest. Only an insig
| nifcant part OF the estate is in the irrigation
district, and entitled to the use of the waters of
| the canal, and that not irrigabe land. The es-
tate had never opposed that irrigation district,
and the suit raised only the common question
| of damages incident to all condemnation suits.
| You make it matter OF public interest when,
| in commenting on 1t. you say 1t has produced
most startling developments. It was shown by
| the testimony that the wheat raised on holdings
of 100 to go acres of land in the State of Cali
| fornia cost the raiser 81 % per hundred. while
| wheat raised on holdings aggregatiDg 10000 to
| $1,000 acres can be produced at fifty cents per
| hundred" And further: 1.-THE testimony ap-
| peared TO establish this beyond controversy"
| And you referred to the writer as having Sc
cured judicial decision based on this testi-
mony which would lead to many gloomy and
| important conclusions.
| The object of this communication is to say to
| you so that it may receive the same wide circu-
lation that its statement had, that there was alb
solutely no such testimony given on the trial of
! that case by any witness, either in words or
| in substance No witness testified as to what il
| would cost 10 raise Genital or any other guam
! tity of wheat on any sized tract ofland or under
any circumstances whatever. No such question
was asked any witness. No such question or
| issue was in the case, or was considered by the
| jury in arriving at its verdict. And the only
| thing of even cognate character was the tssti-
| mony of witnesses that il would be cheaper to
| farm large, square shaped fields than small or
| large ones with irregular-shaped lines, and in
| that connection some witnesses stated that it
was cheaper to farm large fields than small
| ones. But no witness was asked and none
| stated what the difference would be, or what it
cost to raise wheat on any sized tract Of land, or
at all.
The gentlemen above named having given
! no such testimony, do not desire to be misrepre-
sented and having offered no such testimony
and secured no such decision as you name, the
writer is not willing that it should pass uncon-
tradieted. II is apparent that had the testi-
mony, coming from gentlemen of the intelli-
gence and character of the witnesses re-
ferrsd to, been as you supposed when
writing the article, it would furnish fact
of great importance to agrioGltuTists and
others, but as your information was mac
CITRATE, and no such fact was established or
claimed by any witness, it seems important
both to them and the public that the error
should be corrected. f. C. LUsK.
Chico, November Dist.