The record-union., 1893-04-06
THE HEARING BEFORE THE STATE
REGISTER OF LANDS TO-DAY.

The State Register of the Land Office
has called to his aid and counsel three
eminent lawyers of this State, and the
questions to be submitted by that State
officer to these gentlemen may be briefly
formulated.
The State is about to become possessed
of the right to locate at least BOG, 600 acres
of land anywhere in the public domain
within the limits of the State of Califor-
MIA, in lieu of sixteenth and thirty-sixth
sections lost to the State by unsurveyed
townships in forest reservations. This
vast body of land under proper admins
tration would be available to land-seek-
ers who are seeking homes and who are
themselves landless, and under the laws
of the State the price at which this land
is to be sold is 81 % an acre. But the ex-
ercise of the lieu privilege places a pre-
MUM upon the land to be selected in lieu
of land lost. The convenience of acquir-
ing title, the broad field of selection,
the fact that the land selected may be
worth $40 or Sl5 or $40 and acre places a
premium upon the exercise of this lieu
right. Whatever may be said of the
adequacy of the statutes, providing for
the disposition of the State lands, it still
remains that the ordinary settler is pow
erless to find either land lost, which he
may allege as basis of his lieu selections,
or land to be selected; hence, the business
of locating this lieu upon lands in the
public domain has fallen into the
hands of a few firms who exercise
it in such a manner as to Sc
cure to themselves the difference
between the value of the land selected
and the 81 % an acre required to be paid
by the State. Every system must be
judged by its result, and the result of the
system heretofore adopted and now in
practice is to prevent the actual settler
from obtaining this land at the single
minimum of 81 % an acre. The bona
fide settler or land-seeker will find it i'm
possible under existing regulations to
exercise the privilege, should he be en-
titled to its exercise, because of certain
practices which are to pass under review
to-day, before the gentlemen called in to
inform the conscience OF the State Land
Register. The allegations that have been
made as to these practices need not be re-
peated here now. They will be the sub
ject of future discussion. 1t should, how
ever, be noted that one of the devices
by which firms of attorneys have been
able to secure to themselves the differ
ence of value between the price paid to
the State, aud the actual value of the
indemnity. has been through the filing
of applications relating to lands that were
not lost, thus constituting a false basis OF
selection, or if allegation of true loss
which has occurred is made, the selection
OF land not open to selection, and the
subsequent amendment of such applica-
ton, which amendment takes the date OF
the original application.
1t is against this practice that the peo-
pie of the State of California are protest
ing to-day. An application alleging loss,
which has not occurred, is predicated
upon a false basis, is a false application,
is fraudulent from the beginning, and
from the nature of things is void Nc
amendment to these applications should
be allowed, and if this practice is broken
ND the 100000 acres about to be open tc
settlement would be an important auxili.
arv in attracting to this State a reinforce
ment of its industrial population. But
when the price of the land to be obtained
from the State to the actual settler rises
to the figure of So an acre, or even more
IN many instances, the State gains moth,
inc. while the locator acquires fraudu
lent profit.
We repeat what has already been sale
before in these columns, that titles OBJ
t.;ned in this way are contestible. ant
sooner or latter will be contested. Wher
amendment to an application is permit
tod. and the intent Of fraud in the origi