The record-union., 1893-10-10
WRONGING SETTLERS

Under this heading the Stockton NAL
of last Saturday has an editorial which
contains a great deal of good common
sense. 1t says:
Soon after Congress convened Bowers of this
State introduced a resolution asking for in
formation as to whether the United States
might not be made d defendant in the suits
which the Southern Pacific Company had in
stituted against the settlers on the West Side
in Merced and Fresno Counties. The resolu-
tiOn was referred to the Committee on Public
Lands, and on Wednesday was returned to
the House with an adverse report. That is TO
say. the committee is of the opinion that the
Government cannot be compelled or required
to defend the title 10 lands which it has con-
veyed to its own citizens by patent. The same
problem has been decided in the same way re-
peatedly heretofore, but the question presents
itself as TO whether such an Interpretation OF
the duty OF the Government is just. The oc-
cupantS of the West Side lands are not mere
squatters having nothing but possessrOy
title. They hold their homes under patents
atteSted by the signature OF the President and
the great seal OF the United States. When
these patents were issued the Government
represented to its citizens that it held an in
defeasable title to the lands therein described
and that IL conveyed such title TO the Occu-
pants. These patents were presumed and in
tended to be valid as against all claimants eX-
cept the settlers themselves, whose title might
be annulled on the ground of fraud. If they
had committed any. This is the general un-
erstanding of the effect of a patent issued by
the Government. Furthermore, the whole
question OF the rights of the railroad COM
pany was examined by an officer of the Gov
ernment, Land Commissioner Sparks, before
the patents were issued.
1t turned out, however, that the railroad
company had valid title to the lands under
al Act of Congress; at least that is what
Federal District Judge Ross has decided. But
Judge Ross decision is not final, and il would
seem that the Government has clear right to
intervene in behalf of the settlers. 1t would
seem 10 be its plain duty to do so as a matter
OF justice, but the Pubic Lands Committee
has decided that the Government has no duty
to perform in the premises. The settlers must
defend their titles at their own expense This
is not right; it is not justice.
We understand perfectly well that it would
be unwise and vexatious to allow every per-
son TO sue the Government at will; but 1t is
not what Congressman Bowers asks. All that
he contends tor is that the Government shall
come in, and at its own expense defend the
title which 1t has conveyed TO its citizens.
That is manifestly its duty. 1t would be the
duty OF private person under similar cir
cumstances, and that which private person
would be required to do the great United
States ought not to refuse to do. Further
more if a private person should convey land
to another under detective title, represent
ing it to be good, the courts would compel
him to make the purchaser whole in the mat
ter of damages, including the cost of any liti-
cation he might be drawn into. But the
Federal Government does not undertake to
do even that. If the settlers be defeated in
their attempt to establish their title they will
only get back the money which they have
paid OUT, and that only after long delay. The
settlers, however do not want to recover theiI
money; they want to secure homes.
The Government is not acting honestly with
the settlers. and the fact that it is following
an established practice does not help the mat
ter IN the least.
The Mail is right in its conclusion
that the Government is not acting
honestly hv tbasa sat+lars Tho Govarn.
ment owes them restitution in the way o.
damages for attempting to convey title
IF did MT ou-p