The record-union., 1891-10-19
LAND-HoLDINe IN YoLo COUNTY.

Il
AS was anticipated from the first, the
exposition which the RECORD UNION is
making Of the condition of land-holding
In this State is not contributing to
the happiness of large land-holders.
Everybody is opposed to all species
of monopoly except their own. The
labor unions are attempting to
practice a monopoly of the skill
which they possess. They deny to
manufacturers and business men the
right to teach any one their trade. Their
motive for this is to monopolize the en-
ployment. When the State Board of
Trade was first organized, delegation
from the Federated Trades visited that
organization, and protested against in
ducing any laborer or mechanic to come
to California. If manufacturer or mer-
chant had visited that organization with
similar plea, they would have been de-
nounced from one end of the State to the
others as greedy and grasping monopo-
lists.
Some of the widest anti-monopolistsi in
the State are found among the largest
land-holders; and so it comes to pass that
our exposition of the progress of large
land holding in Tehama County has been
criticised. 1t is contended, and with some
truth, we may frankly confess, that a
very large proportion of the landed
estates of that county comprise much
worthless land. This is true, but it does
not follow that because of the truth of
this statement the best lands in Tehama
County are not monopolized. We give
objectors then the benefit of the state
ment that large percentage of the land
held in Tehama County comprises worth
less land, and after making a re-
duction of that worthless land. we
re-assert that the tendency Of the
ownership of fertile land in Tehama
County is in the direction Of large hold
ings. And thus dismissing the question
as relates to Tehama County land, we
present herewith the result of careful in
quiry as to land-holdings among our
neighbors in Yolo County.
Yolo is one Of the most fertile counties
in the State of California. From the foot
hills on the west to the Sacramento
River on the east line, the borders of that
county, lies the fairest heritage within
the borders of this State. We have the
names, the holdings and the valuation for
$780, 1885 and 1890, comprising $50 land
holders in each year. We will content
ourselves, however, with some general
observations as to the first fifty, and then
make specific exhibit Of all those holding
land in excess of 900 acres.
In 1880 the fifty largest land-holders in
Yolo County owned an aggregate of 257,
$40 acres. The smallest of these was !, ,939
acres, and the largest Il, ,449 acres.
In 1885 the first fifty large land-holders,
that's to say, the fifty who would head the
list by giving precedence to the largest
land-holder, and following down in the
order of their holding to the fftieth,
comprise an aggregate of 26S, ,462 acres, the
lowest being 2,042, and the highest Is, 10
acres. The increase in the largest figure
was bat ,263 acres, and the increase OF
the fiftieth man over his corresponding
number in the list of 1880 was but IOl
acres, so that the increase in the aggre-
gate was well distributed throughout
the list The aggregate increase of the
holdings of fifty men in Yolo County
III five years, from 1880 to 1885, was IL So
acres.
In 1890 the fifty names having prece,
dence, by reason of quantity, held an ag-
gregate of 2S2, ,642 acres, an increase over
1880 of over 1000 acres.
This is the showing as relates to the
fifty largest owners between 1850, l88;
and 1890. For the purpose, however, o
uniformity of comparison, we win insti
tute a contrast between all those holding
in excess of 5000 acres. In 1880 there
were twenty persons holding in excess o
< F-1T