Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-04
Mr.. GREEN'S RESPONSE.
The Colusa Irrig alton District and the
Glenn Estate

Glenn Estate.
Will S. Green, engineer of the Central
Irrigation District and editor of the Colusa
Sun, sends the following reply to the COM
munication from F. C. Lusk, attorney for
the Glenn estate, which appeared in the
RECORD UNION on the 2S.h ult:
EDS. RECORD UNION: The condemnation
suit of the Central Irrigation District
against the Glenn estate is receiving some
attention. Mr.. F. G. Lusk, attorney for
the estate. appears in print in your issue Of
last Friday. Technically he scores point
or two, but those understanding The situa.
ton can see that it is only technically.
The Glenn estate embraces some 5000
acres of land on the Sacramento river, in
this county. One field contains some 16 900
acres The Central Canal runs through
this field, cutting off some 800 acres, and
runs through il a distance of six and half
miles. The defendant (the estate) teok
the dispositions Of or brought into Coufta
number of the very largest landowners in
the Sacramento valley, and the proof was
made to show great damage, because of
cutting large tract of land-that il was SO
much cheaper to fence 10000 acres in one
field than to have 5, 800 acres cut off, There
was some damage from the irregularity,
pLt tAC Vi IL ICldtcu Al CuGuDuSSS
of fencing large parallelograms, so much so
that Mr.. Lusk, in addressing the jury, felt
justified in indorsing statement that had
appeared in the San Francisco Bulletin,
that it cost 81 20 to produce a cer-
tai OF wheat on 160-acre tract
and that this cost was reduced in proper
ton to the size of the tract, until it could
be produced on $4,000 acre tract for fifty
cents. Taking this up, wrote an editorial
for the San OF November 10Th, in which l
| said that Mr.. Lusk had made this plea
| and that it was upon this theory that the
excessive damages of S26, 000 in addition to
Sc, 400 for the land, was based. stated
| that as it had been proven that an acre of
| land in a 10000 acre tr6ct was worth so
| much more than an acre in q small tract,
| that taxes must be assessed and collected
| in proportion. | may not have made the
| statement clear enough, and you took it
| that ties imony had been introduced to
prove how much it cost to produce GENITAL
| of wheat on different sized tracts, and Mr..
Lusk took advantage of his opportunity
to make much ado about nothing" The
| theory was substaniiated. 1t was proved
that it could be produced a great deal
| cheaper. II amounted to the same in
theory as though the figures named by the
| Bulletin, and Endorsed and presented to the
! jury by Mr.. Lusk, had been given. There
| is substantially no difference, and the
points MIR. Lusk made about there being
no such testimony comes in the line of
pettifogging. have written several articles
on the subject since, and l am going 10
write others, to the end that taxes
may be assessed according to the
evidence of these large landowners. Mr..
| Lusk assures you that my object in these
| articles is to affect witnesses and jurors in
other cases of like nature. How? l have
charged that the testimony taken as
| whole establishes tie fact that an acre of
land in q large tract is worth more than an
acre in small tract, whether in the exact
ratio claimed by Mr.. Lusk of l20 per cent
to 80 per cent. is of small importance.
| think can show the Board of Equalization
that it will justify tax in double the
amount of the small tract. If this deters
great owners from rushing into Court to
get exorbitant damages from like owners
by showing how much more valuable an
acre is in big tract than a small one, it is
well. If they do they must stand by it
throughout. If it is not fact that the acre
is worth more, and if nobody wants to
| make it so appear, how are witnesses to be
affected? 1t is a rule that must work both
WAYS; if it is invoked to take money out of
the pock8s of small landowners to pay
exorbitafft damages, ii must also work to
| make the larger uacts relleVe the small
holders when it comes to taxes. If they do
not want it to work that way they should
swear not at all"
Mr.. Lusk has been writing some letters
to the local papers of this county, but he
does not abandon his theory of great dam
age to great farms. He says to the Williams
| Farmer that 100000 would be no tempta-
ton whatever for allowing the canal 10 60
through that princely domain. This is
SIS, 800 mile. Let US see if this is not a
greater damage than small farmer would
claim: Joseph Canton owns 800 acres of land
he values at $40 an acre, or S12, 800. The
canal runs through it mile. If he should
be damaged S15, 800; who would own the
balance of the land. and would get the
other 81 500? Mr. Canton asked and re-
ceiyed 5000, about one-ifth the allow
arce to the principally, and one-ffteen Of
Mr.. Lusk's present valuation.
With such ideas of damage rs this there
can be no county roads, no railroads. no
canals, and in fact, if the aggregation of
land into the hands of the few continues,
there will be no need of any Of these things.
But l did not come into your columns to
discuss these matters, but simply to explain.
w. S. GREEN.
| Colusa Denember | 1890