The record-union., 1893-05-02
THE LIEU LAND CONTEST.
How the School Lands of the Sta
Have Been Managed.

Have Been Managed.
The San Francisco Bulletin published
the following editorial last night on The
are being managed by the Surveyor G en-
eral:
The Federal Government granted to the
State OF California the sixteenth and
thirty-sixth sections of publ land within
its borders for school purposes. This
grant was equal to about one-eighteenth
OF the entire area. The grant, OF course
gave no choice of selection. Wherever
the section were defined in the surveys,
even If on top OF bald mountains, or on
deserts, and were practically worthless,
they were to be taken for better or Ior
worse. one or two exceptions are here
noted. If the sections fell on mineral
land they could not be taken. In such
cases it was provided that other lands
| might be selected to the same extent.
These could be designated on any sur
Veyed tract of Government land that had
not been taken uD.
At later day there was one other ex-
ceptlon. The Federal Government had
granted to the State the swamp lands,
which included a large area, part of
winch has since been improved, and the
work OF reclamation is constantly going
on. In making this grant no provision
was made for lieu lands, because the State
had taken the whole and was not, there
lore, entitled to any indemnity for any
thing that had not been lost. 1t could set
apart the sixteenth and thirty-siXth Sec
lions OF these swamp lands for school
purposes or it could let them alone. 1t
never made any selection of sWamp-land
sections for that purpose. but the appar-
eut theory that governed was that other
school lands might be taken in lieu of
those which lnnatal in
ms theory was maintained by large
number OF land attorneys. They advised
their clients and themselves that they
could select other lands to Just the extent
that these sections had fallen within the
swamp area. Recently number OF land
| attorneys have proceeded on the theory
that under the Act of February, 1891. the
swamp land basis was good one for the
claim of lieu lands. They proceeded,
therefore, TO file claims for lieu land to
the extent of nearly 200, 900 acres on this
basis. Otner claimants proceeded on the
theory that this basis was detective, and
they filed applications on the same sec
tlonS OF lieu land, either as q substitute
Tor mineral lands or because school lands
had fallen within forest reservations.
The President, by Act of Congress of
February, 1881, made certain large forest
reservations. These were set apart for
public use. Two of the reservations thus
made had received the assent of the State
This action complicated matters But
the reservations would have been pre-
clsely the same if the State had given no
assent. 1t was part of the Government
| domain reserved for the use of all the
people. Here, again, another basis was
found for the claim of lieu lands. The
attorneys, Tor themselves and applicants
were quick to seize supposed advantage
and filed claims for all the lieu lands that
Il hnx fnll IL.
in these reservations. In the meantime
other parties had hunted up sections here
and there that had not been taken up and
they filed their claims.
That is substantially the complication.
The Surveyor-Generalh has refused to ac-
cept filings for lieu lands where other fill
ings have been made on what may turn
out to be a defective basis. Heretofore
the applicant has been required to find
his lieu land, which he could buy to the
extent.of 800 acres. When he had found
it, the basis being good, he made small
payment down, took receipt, and took
his complete title when he paid up the
full amount.
But the land spectators and their at
torneys have rushed in and propose, with
the assistance of the Surveyor-Generalt to
take up every acre of lieu land in Califor-
mia, having all told, if their plans could
be carried out, about 300, 900 acres in sight,
They denied that in case they have chosen
a defective basis, as for instance that of
swamp land, which has heretofore boen
held not to be good, or that of forest
reservations, which are just about as de-
tective-that these filings shall have the
precedence over such as are known TO be
filed on clear basis. In most of hese
defective applications only the fee had
been paid for fling, the State receiving
no money Tor the land. When money
had been paid out for lieu land on de-
fective basis, there might be an equitable
claim That the State should at least make
good the amount, if it had been paid over
In good faith.
These are the complications that have
created SO much excitement in certain
circles of late. Not one of these compli-
cations was necessary. They may be
traced primarily to the mismanagement
of the Land Department of the State.
There never has been any real difficulty
in making it clear TO every settler as to
just what is good basis for lieu land
and what is not. But the fact that the
Surveyor General has locked up great
number of applications on defective
basis, receiving only the fee and refusing
to record filings for the same land on an
other basis, would seem to show that
either that functionary does not know
what is good basis for lieu land, or
knowing, prefers TO hold the mass of
defective applications until the same
parties shall have precedence over others
in a new filing. Heretofore the theory
for fair land administration has been that
no party of spectators, or others, are to
be assisted to the disadvantage of any
settler in good faith. Has that theory
been reversed?