The record-union., 1891-12-19

By this it will be seen that the twenty
largest holders in the years 1880, 1885 and
1890 maintained about the same aggregate
acreage, and this is equally true entirely
down the list of land-holdings. The
holdings there having arisen to certain
plane of aggregation, have been moving
in horizontal line upon that plane for
ten years.
And now to the consideration of a very
significant result: In Colusa County the
one hundred largest holders held in 1880
5l0, ,224 acres, 541, ,S65 acres in 1885, and
663,610 acres in 1890. There has been an
increase in the aggregate holdings of
these one hundred holders of I53, 900
acres. The population of that county in
1880 was 1918. The population in 1890
was 14,640, an increase of 7, f,522. But the
natural increase of bis people would
be 1854. on the basis Of net increase of 2
per cent. per annum. Thus the county
lost the difference between the gain
shown and the natural increase, which is
1,l02. OF the increase in the population
of Colusa County, 1,116 is to be credited
to the towns of Albuckle, College City,
Colusa, Orland, Williams and Willows.
Thus the rural population of Colusa
County increased only 406; but when the
natural increase of the original popula-
ton or that found in the county in 1880 is
considered, it lost over ZOO.
The same showing as to Tehama
County will be instructive. The aggre-
gate of the one hundred largest holdings
increased nearly 100000 acres between
1880 and 1890. The population of the
county in 1880 was 9,301; in 1890 it was
9,9l6, being an apparent gain of 615.
More than this entire gain is attributable
to the two towns ofRed Bluff and Vina.
so that there was absolutely no increase
in the rural population of that county,
but a decrease. The natural increase of
apopulation of 9,301 would be 1850. The
county therefore lost 1,245, notwithstand-
ing the apparent gain of 615. In two town
ships of that county alone, there was an
actual loss ofpopulation, not considering
the natural gain or the natural increase
of population there, of 1,790 people. Here
are two rural townships in a single
county losing nearly two thousand peo-
pie by actual count, to which, of course,
must be added the loss of natural in
crease Of their population in ten years.
Recalling the fact that the one hundred
largest holders had added 500, 900 acres to
their holdings, or an average of {, 200 acres
each. and the effect of the aggregation of
large land-holdings in the State of Cali
fornia becomes unmistakable.
The increase of population in Solano
County confirms this conclusion. If the
reader will now recur to the tabulated
statements above he will perceive that
the aggregated large land-holdings of the
county have been moving on horizontal
plane for ten years. The population OF
Solano County in 1880 was 1915, and in
1890 it was 20,946, being an apparent gain
of 2,47l, OF this gain six incorporated
towns in the county are credited with
LAS, leaving an increase of 1000 in the
rural population in ten years in that
county AS soon, therefore, as the aggre-
cation of large land-holdings is arrested,
the population shows gain. We dc
not wish to be understood as saying that
the gain of population in Solano County
was satisfactory, because this was not the
case; the gain of population in thai
county should have been 1866, and if the
the large holdings had been broken uI
and the land had been distributed to cult
vstors, instead Of held by monopolists