The record-union., 1893-05-06
STATE LIEU AND LAND MoNoP-
OILY

In recent editorial the RECoRD-U UNION
declared that the best customers of the
land ring were those who already held
large bodies of land, and that The State
lands, whether fit for cultivation or not.
were being sold to the large landed
proprietors. We also stated that we had
raised the question as to whether the
right to select SOC, 900 acres OF lien should
1arther augment land monopoly. which
was doing so much to arrest the develop
ment of the State and drive out its popu-
lation.
We introduce in this place the first
illustrative case; others will follow. In
the list of the large landholders of Butte
County. published within the last year
IN the columns of this paper, Fred II.
Deakin appears as holding q, $50 acres of
land in Butte County, and in the list re-
iating to Tehama County, Fred II.
Deakin is assessed for 6,422 acres. Mr..
Deakin, however, is the owner in the
aggregate, in a nearly contiguous body,
of $4,000 acres of land; and yet Mr..
Deakin entered into a contract with a
firm of land attorneys in the city of San
Francisco to supply him with still more
land, by way of the selection of Govern
ment land in lieu of school lands lost to
the State.
He stated to a representative of the
RECORD UNION that he entered into this
contract in good faith; that he does not
know how the parties from whom he
purchased this land obtained their title.
He says that he took an assignment or
transfer of the applications of certain ap-
plicants, who made applications for the
land, and he succeeded to the rights they
acquired. But he entered into contract
with this firm of land attorneys, as they
call themselves, to supply him with 1000
acres, and they entered into the fulfill
meut of it by way of lieu applications.
Mr.. Deakin informs us that the price
paid by him tor the land already pur-
chased was So 80 an acre; that under his
contract he was to pay the firm of. land
attorneys cash to the value of 81 25 an
acre, that being the amount their dummy
applicants had to pay the State; and that
the balance, which constituted their pro-
fit, was based on a credit of two years.
Mr.. Deakin and his partner come into the
ownership ofthe large body of land he has
acquired by the exercise of their right to
take State land in the quantity of GAO
acres each. Thus the owner of $4,000
acres of land come to the State. and in
their own name secure ], $50 acres of land.
and through the manipulation of specu-
currence of the Surveyor General, ACQUIRE
1000 acres more, and this in State where
its organic law has declared that the
policy of holding large bodies of land is
injurious, and which also declares that
the land of the State fit for cultivation
shall be sold only to actual-not con-
structive-settlers, and in quantities not
to exceed 800 acres.
We ask all the parties interested if this
transaction is not veritable one, and if
Mr.. Deakin did not enter into the con-
tract as herein set forth. If he did, and
we know he did, because we have his
authority for the statement. then our case
is made-that the large landed proprietors
of the State are acquiring title to every
acre to which the State parts title.
We again call the attention of the ad-
ministrative officers of the State of Cali
fornia to the enormity of this mal-admin-
istration. Contracts are entered into by
land attorneys to sell a single individual
1900 acres of land, which they openly de-
clare to him that they intend to get bv
way of lieu selections. They will put
themselves in a position to convey title
to him within short period of time. and
they meet their obligations according to
their agreement. They sell for S3 80 an
acre land for which the State receives
81 25 an acre.
We do not present the case of the con-
tract made between Mr.. Deakin and the
attorneys referred to as isolated. We re-
fer to it because we are in possession of
proofs to authenticate every part of this
story. We will not be called upon for
these proofs. The parties interested will
admit the statement to be true. Thew
will do this because the traffic in the lands
in the manner herein outlined has been
open and notorious, and one hundred
cases are just as easily cited as one; but
single case plainly stated will serve to
illustrate all the rest.
We call the attention of the people of
California to the facts and demand that
the administrative officers OF the State
shall address themselves at once to the
task of reforming these abuses.
AS to whether title acquired in this
way, being initiated in fraud, is title,
will hereafter be tested. That titles to
land acquired in this way are contestible,
no well-informed person will deny, and
the public should be warned against fur
ther purchases of this kind. The investi-
CATION now in progress will bring the