The record-union., 1891-11-07

County in 1855. Tho assessed valuation
footed up SS17, LAG. The ia ge.t andholder
OF the nineteen held 10. g cies, the smallest
$50.
During the ten years that followed 1880
there was general shifting OF lines. and only
eight Of the original nineteen were to be
counted among the nineteen largest real es-
tate owners in 1890. In that time many of
the most valuable though not the largest of
these estates were divided, Subdivided and
sold TO new and old settlers.
In 1890 the nineteen largest landowners held
76,346 acres-932 less than the number of
acres owned by one man in Tehama County in
the same year-at q valuation of S651, ,3S1.
The owner standing highest had Il, $40 acres,
valued at S33 Jos, and the one standing low
est had ,537 acres, valued at 81 ,oS0. While
The last nineteen held in the aggregate 7,6O3
acres more than the first nineteen. the total
value of their holdings fell short S165, ,765.
We account for this decrease in value of
greater acreage in this way: Those lands held
III large tracts and most valuable in 1880
were IN the ten years following cut up and
added TO the small farm acreage, and the ac-
curing OF larger estates affected chiefly the
cheaper mountain ranges now used in remote
parts OF the county for stock ranches. For in
stance, where one man in 1850 controlled 4,
334 unbroken acres-land that was conven-
lent 10 market, well watered and susceptible
TO a high state of tillage-twenty-siX families
are now established in comfortable homes,
marked by well-fenced grain fields fruitful
orchards and thrifty vineyards.
There has been no going backward, as in
Colusa and Tehama. Our population in
II L,
and the footings of our asSessabie wealth
Jumped from $9,1S2. .661 II in 1850 to S14,-
SS7,S27 in 1890. There seems to be cheer
ful willingness on the part of our heavy owners
to carve up their large estates, and conditions
generally are as favorable to small as to large
investors.
It will be observed that while the Regis
ter finds comfort in the explanation of
the increase of large holdings, the
fact remains that taking nineteen men as
owning in 1880 70,743 acres, ten years
later the holdings of nineteen largest
owners had augmented by 1903 acres,
while the assessed valuation of these
holdings declined Sl65, ,765. Is it sufficient
explanation to say that the aggregated
holdings of each of these nineteen land
monopolists is of poorer lands? Wetrust
that this is so, and that the idea of the
Register is borne out by facts, that the
larger holdings of better lands in 1880
have now been subdivided, and are gen.
orally occupied by a prosperous and
larger rural population. In one case of
twenty-six families the Register gives it
of it's own knowledge that it is true.
But the testimony of our contemporary
is that the spirit of monopolization of the
soil continues, and that this congestion of
land in single hands really increased by
more than 10 per cent. in the decade be-
tween 1880 and 1890. So long as the land
monopolizing spirit lnanifests vigor in
county, the community is not up to the
level of true prosperity.
However, we are not disposed to be
captious, and rejoice therefore that Napa
has gained over 5000 in population, and
that it is largely of the rural class, while
land monopolization has been pushed
back into less desirable sections. In
Yolo, Colusa and Tehama, it will be re-
membered from our statistical exhibits,
there has been deplorable decline in the
rural population, along with the statis-
tical increase of the number and acreage
of large land-holdings
We are disposed, therefore, to accept
VIC 0ueoIy Va the 1beytSteT luaG Ndpa is 10
be congratulated because of her increase
of rural population, and the retiracy Of
the land monopolists to tracts less desir-
able, and which are used mainly for the
lesser purposes of agriculture. But we
should be more pleased with Napa's ex-
hibit did it show that with the increase Of
rural population, there had been decrease
in the number and acreage of large land
holdings.