The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1893-04-07

| commissioner Watershed he paid
any of the purchase money?
Reichert-Not at the time, but he did all
he could do. Because he did not go
further was no fault of his, nor OF the
State-it was simply difference of opin-
! ion between the State authorities and the
Secretary Of the Interior. Now he says,
- on have tied that land up, the Govern
ment has no right to dispose OF that land
! under our homestead laws, but it is still
reserved to me, and l demand of you to
cure any defects by amending that"
| That application still remains here.
THE QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED
Is, what disposition am to make of it {?
l cannot do it under the law of 1858, as
! that applies only to school sections, and
as l understand the law, time does not
run against this application-no six
months, nor six years run against it.
| w hat am l to do? Can l say that basis
IS not good? If so, he will ask, ''Why
did you accept it ?" 1 am simply asking
| you.
| Commissioner Pillsbury-You would
not accept basis unless you thought it
| was good?
Reichert-No, sir. If we take up that
application and we do not think it is
good, we do not file it, and it does not be-
come a record of this State. In reply to
MIR. Singer, | would say, we do not know
until we make thorough examination
whether there is a single good application
III that safe. They will say, "Why didn't
you file them?' I will tell you: Until
we received this proclamation from the
President we had no knowledge of what
particular townships were included in
that reservation. We did not know the
out limits, and could not take the word
of every Tom, Dick and Harry, and
wished to be particularly informed what
ranges and townships were included
| therein.
,Singer-There is no provision that you
should ever get any official information of
the Presidents proclamation?
Reichert-No; we simply received
telegram that proclamation had been
made. am. asking for information
that's what l am here for.
| Mr.. Shankliu said the question of the
amendment of basis is not involved in
the issue before the commission, because
the General Land Office has not vet de-
cided the matter. In his opinion the
! Surveyor-General has no right to amend
an application.
AN ALLIANCE PROTEST.
The discussion then became somewhat
general and informal, and after consider
able talk, +. z Cook requested a hearing
tie said he represented the Executive
Committee of the Farmers Alliance, q
class OF people who are considerably inter
eSted in the land question. The land OF the
State should be apportioned among actual
settlers only, and the power of the Sur
veyor- should be used in that
direction solely.
J. w. Shanklin held that when an ap-
plicatlon comes in, if it be on Il known
good basis, the Surveyor-Generals should
| file it; II not good, he should not receive
it. There is no law to authorize the Sur
veyor-General to select basis for the ap-
plicant. The printed application contains
| NO rnfa = h., -
plication is pending in Washington, and
other applicants for the same come in,
the original applicants should be allowed
an opportunity to make theirs good.
Commissioner Hart-Why not file a
new application?
Mr.. Shanklin-Because while doing so
someone else might come in with valid
application, and shut out the first one.
Commissioner Hart-ThaJs Just what
we are trying to get at. The object, then,
in amending applications made on void
bases is TO shut out bona fide applicants.
That seems to be the
MEAT OF THE WHOLE MATTER.
Commissioner Hart asked Mr.. Shank
lin if the inexperienced had any right
to refuse the filing of an applicant, and
Mr.. Shanklin replied that the officer had
not.
+. A. Hyde then asked Mr.. Shanklin
why, when he was Surveyor General, he
had refused to file applications?
Mr.. Shanklin said he had not so re-
fused-that he had considered it his Off
cial duty to file all applications that were
accompanied by the proper fees.
Singer-There is decision in the case
of Cowser VS.. Minis, where the rule was
laid down that the Surveyor General had
no discretion in regard to the filing of APP
plications. Let me suggest that l think
the Surveyor-General has discretion
about lieu applications.
AGENT HYDE HAS THE FLOOR.
+. A. Hyde of San Francisco said the
Act of 1858 did not give indemnity for
swamp basis, but the law of 1866 did per-
NIT the selection of land in lieu of lands
lost to the State in various ways. He
went into an extended review of legisla-
ton by Congress in regard to public lands