Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1897-04-07
MISMANAGED,
The Public Lands of Oregon,
Governor Lords Plain Words on
the Subject,
We quote the following from Go

RTATE SCHOOL LANDS.
The successful management of state
lands depends upon laws enacted to
promote the object for which they
were granted, and their strict admin
iStration. Oregon has been the ben.
efciary of large land grants for vari-
objects,and much legislation has been
devised and enacted in regard to
them, but our state has not realized
the benefits AMI advantages which it
should have received from them. All
that can now be done is to take care
of and dispose of.what remains, so a S
best to promote the objects and dis
tribute the benefits of these grants.
1t is greatly to be regretted that the
law did not make better provision for
the segregation and mapping Of state
llnds. for indexing all sales of them
and disclosing their location, and
further providing that the officers
in charge of the land Of
flee, when requested by a
purchaser, or other interested person,
should give the information asked, as
appears from the record. 1t would
have saved purchasers much unneccs-
sary expense, and greatly aided in
comforting the benitits designed to be
given by the grants. But, without
legal provision, the land department
Office ought to have auoped rules aud
regulations ttat would have served
this purpore. The records of the
Office ought to have been kept. in
such a way that a person desirous of
purchasing a certain piece of state
land could easily ascertain
its location, whether it was
taken or was for sale, without
incurring the unnecessary expense
of hiring third party. BY neglect
ing to do so, it was only possible for
its officers, or those who had acquired
special knowledge Of the location Of
state lands, to consult the record as
kept and ascertain the desired facts.
Such mode of doing public business
offers too much temptation for wrong
doing and scandalous practices to
Justify Its existence or continuance.
Some of our statutes, however, seem
to have been expressly designed to en-
courage despoliation of state land
purchasers. Our statute, repealed in
l 395, was framed in such way that |
party desiring to purchase piece Of
indemnity land, was compelled to
take the risk of title to the
land which he selected, but as
could obtain no assistance from
the records of the land office as kept, |
he was forced by the necessity of the |
case to seek land attorney who could |
find base before he could make his /
selectson and cOnsummate the pur-
chase. This usually involved the pay
ment of fees. often equal to the price |
of the land desired, and was a service |
that, under proper practice, was
wholly unnecessary. What was the
result? 1t now appears that many Of
the bases selected by these land agents
were not subject to be taken, and, the
title failing, the purchaser falls back
upon the state and asks to be indem-
nitied for his purchase money. The |
case is hard one. He has paid for /,
his land and the state has his money,
but he has received no title to such
land, and he is out the price of the
land and the other sum-whatever
that may be-paid to the land attor-
ney. Even if the person whom he
hired to select the land was liable,
which is perhaps doubtful, he would
prove a poor resource for his
losses. The case is one of a bad stat
ute working in combination with a
bad office pratcice. The state, under
such circumstances, imposed upon, the
purchaser an impossible task, if 1t
desired to sell its land, which is reas-
enable TO presume. When il imposed
The risk of title upOn the purchaser
Of the land he selected, the state
ought to have required that the rec
)rdS of its land Office should be kept