Amador ledger., 1907-11-29
THAT FRAUDULENT
HOMESTEAD
How Our Contemporaries
Gloss 1t Over.

District Attorney Vicini was inter
viewed during the week in reference
to an article that appeared in the San
Francisco Call, Chronicle and Ex-
aminer on Sunday last in which it is
alleged he made erroneous statements
in connection with a homestead
entry. He informs US that in 1901 he
filed homestead on 160 acres of
land in the snow region of Ell
Dorado county, and made his in
provements as required bylaw at that
time, and thereafter forfeited his
homestead entry and made applica-
tion of the government to purchase
the land, which was granted, and
paid the government Sl.25 per acre,
and the government issued its patent
to him on the l4th day of March,
1904. 1t seems that some kind friend
has interested himself very much in
the private affairs of Mr.. Vicini.-
Dispatch.
The Record feels safe in saying that
our former townsman has simply
acted in this matter as had been the
general custom in this and other
counties for some time, but it also
appears to US as decidedly unfair to
single out our friend for the slaughter
when it is matter of common gossip
that other men in our county hold or
have obtained thousands of acres in
this county alone in much the same
manner. In the language of the
street, to use slang phrase. it looks
to US as though one of the small fish
hadi been singled out for the Fall
Guy to cover up the real offenders.
1t remains to be seen whether or not
the U. s. District Attorney really
means business. If he does and sends
into this and adjoining counties some
of his secret service sIeuths there will
be certainly lively doings for some of
those higher up.-Amador Record.
We copy the above from the Dis
patch and Record to show how the
grave charges involved in tie fraudu-
lent homestead of Z. T. Vicini, dis
trict attorney of Amador county, is
slobbered over by our contemporaries.
The Dispatch publishes nothing more
than the extract & given, while the
Record does give the statement con-
tanned in the Examiner concerning
the affair, with the comments of its
own, which we quote.
Hhe defense of the Dispatch is that
Vicini did no wrong, because he
paid for the land at the rate of 81 %
an acre, stating that he forfeited his
homestead right, by non-residence,
we presume, and resorted to the cash
entry instead. This explanation is
claimed to come from the homestead
claimant himself. 1t aims to con-
vey the idea that there is nothing
wrong or criminal in the affair,
and consequently that the United
States government is persecuring an
innocent man in taking steps to
cancel the patent. We intended to
let the matter drop with the brief
statement published in the Ledger
last week, but this clumsy effort to
throw dust into the eyes of the
public, whether made from political
or personal motives it matters not.
induces us to give more extended
notice, showing the transaction in it's
true light, with the serious criminal
offenses involved therein:
1t is admitted when the homestead
was filed in 1901 that the claimant
was, and had been for some time pre-
viously, district attorney OF Amador
county. Now section 41l9 of the
political code reads as follows:
The following officers must reside
at the county seat of their respective
counties; The county judge, the
treasurer, the county clerk, the
auditor, the sheriff, the tax collector.
the district attorney, the recorder.
All county officials before entering
upon the duties of their respective
offices, are sworn to obey the laws OF
the state and United States. In face
of this district attorney Vicini fled
upon tract of leo acres of land in
the snow regions of Ell Dorado county,
at least thirty miles from the county
seat of Amador county, under the
homestead laws. The very fact of
being district attorney was a bar to
such filing, because the laws of the
state and of the United States were
utterly incompatible as regards resi-