The record-union., 1893-05-08
LIEU LAND FRAUDS.
The undertaking Ring Gets a Sc
we're Setback.
Judge Catlin Orders a Peremptory
Writ of Mandate to
Issue.

been so long manipulating the lands of
the state through the Surveyor-G Generals
office, was brought up with sharp turn
by Judge Catlin in the Superior Court on
Saturday. The case before the court was
that of the people of the State of Cali
fornia, on the relation of f. B. Willis,
Managing Editor of the RECoRD-UNIoN,
VS.. Theodore Reichert, Surveyor-Gen-
eral and ex ofiicio Register of the State
Land Offices and the result was a complete
and sweeping victory for the relator and
the utter confusion for the land ring.
On the 18th of April Judge Catlin, on
petition of relator in the above entitled
action, granted an alternative writ of
mandate directing the Surveyor-General
TO appear and show cause why he should
not perform certain public duties of his
Office, the prayer of the petition being as
follows:
Plaintiffs therefore pray that an alternative
manuamus may issue to the said Theodore
Reichert, rvcyor-General and eX officio
Register of the State Land Office as aforesaid,
commanding that, unless he shows good
cause why he should not so do, on day to be
fixed by your honor, he make written re-
port TO the State Controller, stating the
amount OF fees paid to him during the months
OF December, 1892, January, 1898, Febru-
y,
him accompanying the applications to pur-
chase herein before set forth ana described;
that he pay into the State Treasury all the
moneys so received by him; that he permit
your relator and all citizens of this State to
inspect the said applications, and that he
make record showing the number of each OF
the said lieu applications filed with or re-
ceived by him between December l, 1892,
and A ApTil /, l S93, the name of the applicant
thereof, and the description of the land SO APP
piled for; and that he communicate with the
proper land Office and ask that the lands de-
scriDed in the said applications be accepted in
part satisfaction of the said lieu grant; and
that upon his failure 10 show such cause that
he be absolutely and peremptorily command
cd by your honor to do and perform all OF
said things.
The applications referred to in the pc
tition were a vast number of applications
for land in lieu of sixteenth and thirty
sixth sections falling within forest reser-
Vations made by the United States Gov
ernment and which the Surveyor-Gen-
eral had locked up in his safe and re-
fused to allow the relator or anyone else
to see. AS they were public documents
the RECORD UNION determined to see
them and let the people of the State know
their contents.
TO this petition the Surveyor General
filed demurrer, which was overruied by
the court, except as 10 the matter of pay
ing the money into the Treasury. He
was then given time to answer and came
into court subsequently with an answer
which the court declared was unsatisfact-
ory and sham, as it stated things on in
formation and belief which should have
been stated directly. For instance, the
Surveyor-General in his answer stated
that he did not know how many applica-
tons were in his safe or the amount of
money that accompanied them. The
court held that if he did not know he
ought to have known and could easily
have ascertained.
The court then permitted the Surveyor
General to amend his answer, and he
again came into court and reported that
there were l95 applications, l29 of which
were accompanied by the fee ofS5.
The urveyor-General and his chief
deputy, ID. NJ. Anger, were put upon the
witness stand by the plaintiff and ques-
toned in regard to the number of appli-
cations which had been in the safe at the
time the alternate writ was issued, April
18th, when it was developed from their
own testimony that after the writ was
served upon them they had allowed
various parties to withdraw from the safe
a large number of these applications
probably great many more than were
left, though they could not be induced to
state how many. asserting that they had
not counted them or kept any account
of them whatever.
This was the condition of things when
the case came up again on Saturday
and was questioned briefly by William
Singer. attorney for plaintiff, in regard to
a certain book which he admitted was
kept in the office. in which was usually
entered all the applications filed in the
Office. Witness testified, however that
none of the applications referred to in
the petition were entered in this book, as
the office claimed that they were not
filed.
Judge Catlin then took the witness in
hand and examined him closely in re-
gard to the number of applications which
were in the safe when the alternate writ
was issued, and why he had permitted
them to be withdrawn, in violation OF the
writ.
Witness insisted that he did not know
how many applications had been in the
safe or how many had been withdrawn
He said he considered that the papers be-
longed to the persons who had left them
there, and when they called and asked to
take them he permitted them to do so.
lie handed out the packages to them and
they took out what they wanted and left
the balance. Sometimes they took the
whole package.
AS this testimony was given Judge
Catlin was evidently much annoyed at
such flagrant violation of the alternative
writ issued by him, and there was good
deal OF nervousness on the part of Mr..
Reichert and his deputy. Everybody in
7. a
punished for contempt, as he took all the
blame on himself, and only ex-
cused himself on the ground that he
did not understand that the writ prohib-
tied him from allowing the parties TO
withdraw the applications. He said that
il he had SO understood it he would not
have acted as he did.
}. c. Campbell. attorney for the de-
tendant assured the court that he did not
know of the Withdrawal i'll time or he
would have advised his client not to per-
init ii. He declared that he did not be-
leve there had been any intention on the
part Of the Surveyor-General or his
deputy to violate the order of the court
Judge Catlin said there had been dis
obedience OF the writ, but he was not dis
posed to be particular i'll such matters if
there was no disposition TO willfully dis
obey the order of the court, but he
warned the defendant that there must be
no more such practices. These were
public documents and the plaintiff had
the right TO inspect them in the condition
in which they were when the alternative
writ was issued on the 18th of April, but
he had been deprived of that right by the
action of Anger so far as the applications
that had been withdrawn was concerned.
He did not like such proceedings, but
would let 1t pass this time on the state
ment that there was no intention to dis
obey the order of the court.
The court then ordered that per-
emptory writ of maudamus issue direct
inc the Surveyor General TO permit the
relator, without delay, 10 inspect the
papers as they are now and to take
memoranda of the names OF the appli-
cants land sought TO be purchased, the
basis for it, date of application and any
other information they contained. such
inspeCtion to commence not later than