The record-union., 1893-04-13


Is entitled to exercise?
Al do not know how to answer that |
question, unless he confines his settle |
ment to the sixteenth and thirty-sixth
sections in place. If he wants to avail
himself of the opportunity of making
nome on lieu land, he, or the Surveyor
General for him, or some middle man,
would have to designate that the State
has sustained loss before he could make
lieu land application.
Q.-Would it assist the home-seeker if
the State uryeyor-General would make
his declaration Of the loss and publish the
land constituting the basis of indemnity
right?
At certainly would, and that was
the plan adopted in early days, from 1883
to 1868. While the State locating agents
were operating 1t was customary Tor
man living in district where one OF
these agents operated TO approach the
agent and tell him what land he wanted.
Then the agent immediately ascertained
from the Land Office whether there was
any loss which the State had sustained,
and if he found it and there was plenty
of 1t in those days he Immediately in
serted what was lost and filed the appli-
cation in the United States Land Office in
behalf of the State, and the applicant OBJ
tanned the land he desired, using the
State loss as basis, just as Mr.. TwltcAeu
stated in his article in the RECORD UNION
on last Saturday.
Q.-Why was that plan abandoned?
At was abandoned partly as mat
ter of economy, but principally to give
the entire control of the State lands over
to the state urveyor-General.
Q.-Since the Surveyor has had
the entire control, have the citizens OF
California, without the Intervention of
attorneys, been able to locate lands?
! Avery seldom, except lands in place.
Q.-It is practicable under the present
| system to go to the State Land Office and
pay 80 for filing an application for a six
! tenth or tuirty-siXth section and $50
| deposit on the purchase price, and
| thus pre-empt the sixteenth ana thirty
| sixth sections, is it not?
A.-The present law does not prohibit
another applicant, or as many applicants
as choose, to file Tor the same land, pay
the same fee, and make similar deposit;
and their applications take precedence
according to the date of the filing, ard
their compliance with the requirements
of the law.
ON the absence of settlement on the
part of either adverse applicant, is it not
a fact that the first in time is the first in
right?
A.-That is correct, sir.
Q.-Do you know of instances where
the present State Surveyor-Generalh has
/ permitted indemnity selections to be
made in lieu of sixteenth and thirty
sixth sections that have been sold and
patented by the State as sections in place,
wherein the lieu selections We're not
made by the same party who made the
purchase of the section in place?
A.-Only one instance of that kind has
come under my observation. Whether
more exist or not | cannot say. In look
ing over the records of the Land Office, 1
L noticed a section that had been sold and
patented by the State. and also marked as
the basis of lieu land selection. This
excited my curiosity, and l examined the
records further, and found that the patent
had not been set aside, and no objection
appeared to have been FLED against its
validity, and yet | found that eight lieu
land applications had been filed, using
portions of that sold section as the basis
of the selection; all of which. except one,
have been accepted by the Land Depart
ment at Washington. In this instance,
the section patented by the State to its
purchaser was subsequently used as a
basis of lieu selections, alleging the land
which had been sold and patented by the
State to have been lost to the State. Thus
the State acquired the land which il
patented, and acquired lieu in almost
equal quantity for the same land, alleg-
ing the land sold and patented by it as
lost to the State.
Own a title acquired by allegation
of loss, which has not been sustained by
the State, be good in your opinion?
A.-Such lieu selections are subjectEtC
contest at any time by the Government
of the United States. Even though
patent had issued to the State, that paten
would be vacated should the Government
seek to have it vacated.
Q.-Take the instance you have cited o
allegation of the loss of piece of State
school land, which had been patented by
| ba What &c n tho
full repetition to the amount OF u million
acres?
A.-Some presumption as to the founda
ton for the loss must have been made il
this case, and would have to be made il
all other cases.
Q.-The presumption in this case wa
found sufficient; cannot presumption
; equally strong be made to the extent of
million of acres sold by the State to pur
l chasers of sections in place?
: Al should say not, unless maps o
l field notes should indicate that there wa,
some foundation for the loss.
Q.-What in the instance you hav,
given did the field notes suggest a
foundation for loss?
Al have not examined the fielC
notes to ascertain the alleged cause. Tn,
map itself shows no cause.
, Q.-What evidence, if you know, wa
! furnished to the State Surveyor-G enera
. Oh loss Vi tudb SGClIOu udNlLB arisen II
4 the State?
l Al cannot say.
Q.-Have any lieu selections to you
: | knowledge been offered at the State Sur
) veyor-GeneraPs office since those appli
cations were locked up in the safe AM
been accepted by him and forwarded t,
the local land office?
: A.-There have. He has accepted othe
Z lieu land applications and forwards
l them to the local land office, withou
=, using the basis designated in them for th
; purpose of correcting the old applica
Z tons.
Oft the sixteenth section in fores
. reservation had been sold, could thu
! purchaser subsequently surrender it t,
i the State and get his money back?
Al think not. Where the application
. had simply been flied with the prelimiu
i airy deposit, it is possible that that Nigh
be done; but not where the land had beel
sold.
Q.-Have you not heard that some land
dealers have resorted to the scheme @
:. filing and making the deposit for six
~ teenth and thirty sixth section in place
. intending as soon as they had custome
IL for lieu lands to abandon the sixteenth o
thirty-siXth section in place, and use tn
% same section as lieu basis?
Al have heard of such applications i
two ways; first, that if the United State
desired to free the reservations from ad
e verse claims, that the United State
e would have to buy of the lieu applicants
or if the United States did not see tit I
: do SO, that the applicants might abando
: their applications and use the sixteent
70 or thirty-sixth section as basis for lieu st
lection, in case the United States wa
Ill i,