The San Francisco call., 1904-07-04

ie'Liu pollcy OF tne state mas been the
subject of legislative attention, as the
! acts approved on the following dates
fully attest: March 16, 1872; March
2S, 1879; Congressional Resolution,
1878: March %, 1873; April L, 1878;
April %, 1880; March "a, 1898; March
II, 1897; March 2, 1901, and March
10, 1901. Notwithstanding these acts,
the general policy underlying the act
OF 1858 has not been changed in any
essential feature.
Reference has already been made
TO the fact that no one possesses suf-
fcient information on the subject to
determine, even with a remote prob
ability of accuracy, the economic
value Of reclamation scheme having
Tor its object the reclamation of all
the overfiowed lands belonging to the
State. But beyond this, the question
OF the practicability of the scheme
from its legal aspect is worthy of
thoughtful consideration.
QUESTION OF LEGALITY.
More than 1900, 600 acres of land
granted TO the State of swamp and
overtlowed land have been granted to
individuals by patent which conveys
the title without conditions. These
lands, Notwithstanding they belong to
the category OF swamp and overfloWed
lands, are as completely exempt from
special assessment for the reclamation
or other lands as any other lands of
the State.
The decision of the Supreme Court
IN the case of kimball VS.. Reclama-
tlon Fund Commission. by superficial
reading, would seem to hold that Con-
gress had by the act granting swamp
ana overflow lands to the State i'm
posed upon the grant itself the condi-
ton that the lands be reclaimed. What
the court decided was that, whereas
the Legislature had inaugurated a sys-
tenn for the reclamation of these lands
by organizing a Board of Commission
ers who were TO superintend the work
and had provided that in any district
where a petition representing one
third in acres of the tract of land pro-
posed to be reclaimed was located the
appellant was bound in law to take
notice of the public statute and must
be deemed TO have accepted the title
IN subordination Of the paramount
right and duty of the land to be re-
GAINED; that general system for the
purpose of reclamation had been in
augurated and that wherever under
the provisions of the law the practical
measures of reclamation had been set
up the owners Of land within such dis
trict must submit to assessment for
the reclamation of the land they
owned; that the owner of lands in a
district to be reclaimed could not de-
cline to contribute to the cost of such
reclamation and then enjoy the incre-
ment which would ensue, but must
contribute equally with other owners
in the same district to the reclamation
cost.
But this is far from declaring that
the owners of swamp land which has
been reclaimed who have received pat
erts from the State conveying a title
without conditions, may now be sub
Jected to assessments upon their land
for the purpose of reclaiming swamp
land which they do not own.
RULINGS OF THE COURTS.
1t has been claimed that whoever ac-
cepts title to swamp land accepts such
title in subordination to the paramount
right and duty of the State to cause
the land to be reclaimed by any meth
cd it might see fit TO employ If this
contention had been understood to be
true, the liability of expenditure on ac-
count of the reclamation of any swamp
land purchased from the State would
never cease until the last acre of
swamp and overfiowed land had been
reclaimed. If this doctrine had been
promulgated and believed in from the
first. the State would never have
POI NNh AillG Will OIlH SlHSle acre, De-
cause, while the economic value of re-
claimed portions of the swamp land
might be ascertained, the profitables
ness of reclaiming it all at the expense
OF all was wholly unascertainable. No
one would have attempted the recla-
nation Of a portion of this land with
the understanding that he was event
ually TO be charged with a proportion
ate cost of reclaiming all the other
swamp and overfiowed lands of the
State.
But the fact that the swamp lands
purchased from the State are not
charged with the duty or obligation to
reclaim other lands is no longer de-
batable or doubtful. Whatever con-
struction the decisions of the State
court in this relation may be suscepti-
Bile Of, the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States with refer
ence to the meaning of the act granting
swamp and overfiowed lands to States
are not ambiguous and obscure.
In deciding the case of Mills County
vs.. Railroad Companies, 1O7 u. S.. 557,
it was held:
The proviso of the second section Of the act.
that tho proceeds Of the lands shall be ap-
piled exclusively. as far necessary, to the
drains. imposed obligation which rests upon
the good faith of the States. No trust was
thereby aItacDed 10 the lands. and the title to
them, which Is derived from either of the
States. is not affected by the manner in which
she performed that obligation.
And again, in Hagar VS.. Reclamation
District, Ill u. s., 701, it was said:
II is not competent for the owners of land
the swamp land act, 8 Stat $40 to set up
in proceedings begun to enforce a tax on the
land assessed under a State law for the pur-
pose OF draining and improving ii that the
State law impairs the obligation Of the contract
between the State and the United States and
so violates the constitution; because ID II the
swamp land act constituted a contract between
the state and the United States, he was no
party 70 IL; and (2) the appropriation of the
proceeds Of the granted swamp lands rests
so'eiy IN the good faith OF the State
MEANING OF DECISIONS.
In the first decision quoted it is de-
clared that the obligation of State to
reclaim the land rests upon the State
alone, and that no trust is thereby at
tached to the land itself, but that the
title TO such land when obtained from
the State is not affected by the man
ner in which the State might perform
it's duty to the Government.
In the second decision IT is declared
that the purchaser of State swamp
lands is not party TO the contract be-
tween the State and the United States
relating to reclamation, and that the
appropriation of the proceeds from the
tod Ian dc