The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-09-10
is
ORE ABOUT THE METHODS OF THE STATE LAND BOARD
ReorM and s

cant. said certificate haS not been de-
livered Mr. Bcckwiths deposit was ac-
cordingly refunded In regular order. his
offer having been met by Mr. Nebeller
! II. e. S.
Statement Badly False.
The opening statement is BADLY false in
so far as any record that can be shown
in the Office of tho state board Of land
commissioners. The attempted explain
alton that "on July 9, when numbering
applications to enter on the preliminary
application register of offered lands the
Nebeker application was given prefer
ence because of having applied on July
6, 1909, when wrong blank was used.
This was not noticed, however, until
Beckwith S name had been written in
the book opposite the number 1870.
Beckwith's s. name was erased and Ncb-
| ekcr IS was written in that place, and
the Nebeker application numbered
1370.'
This statement is not in accord with
the facts. Beckwith S application bears
the notation, Received July 8, 1909,
$3.50 n. m" Mr.. Nebeker's bears
stamp showing its reception at 2:35
p. m. on the 9th of July. and that it
was the intent to mlslead the public,
at least that Beckwith's g application,
having been erased as No. 1870 that it
should bear, appears As Of much later
date, when it was given No. 1888, under
date Of July 10, which nowhere appears
as the date Of fling on the original
With the untruthful alleged state
ment of facts. which was in reality a
brief for Nebeker, before the board. It
was referred 10 the attorney general
for his opinion.
Then the Mountain Labored.
Then the mountain laborcd and at
last brought forth a learned opinon
based upon the incorrectness of the
statements prepared by the board: Inc
attorney general found for Nebcker;
Albert Z. Barnes,
| Attorney General.
Deputy Attorney General.
Feb, 4, 1910,
Hon, w. II. Farnsworth, co,,s-
sloners.
Dear Sir have before me your favor
OF recent date wherein you have feIerreiH
X Nehel1er and Erwin w. Beckwltn tor
the purchase of state lands; The two ap
plications being for portions OF Same
| land,
You have enclosed the applications to-
gether with the papers connected there
| with and the briefs which were submitted
|
have also made statement in regard
! to the matter which is briefly as follows:
| On July g. 1909, your office received an
application from Frank X NGneker aS, nso so
| enclosed for $4,000 as provided py Ia"
to cover ten per cent of the price OIL 1ered: re.i
| that is 500 acres at sou per acre Ihis
application appears 10 have been MADE
on the wrong blank and for that reason
| the application and check were returned
| by your office to Mr. NebclSer notitYlnG
| y: o - III IL IN
| one and enclosing proper blank for him
| TO make an applica ton upon.
| On July 9th Of the same year Mr.. Ne
beller returned TO your office the applca-
tion on The proper blank and at the same
time returned his check for $4,000
! 1t appears however that on July SIN,
| 1909 Erwin w Beckwith filed an appll-
cation In your office for $50 acres OF this
same land which was applied for by Mr..
Ncbellcr. At the same time MY. BECK
with paid into your office the necessary
10 per cent of the price offered which was
On July 9th OF that year and upon
numbering The applications to be entered
upon the preliminary application regis
ter OF offered lands In your Office the aP-
plcatlon OF Nebckcr was given preference
as to number because OF his appncation
though upon q wrong blank. II appears
that before this was done Beckwiths
name had been written opposite the NO
1870 in the book referred to but on TINS
date July 9th. Beckwiths name was
erased and Nebcker's name was written
in place thereof and Nebeker's applica-
tion was given the No, 1870.
1t appears from your statement that
the practice OF your office is To reject 4
second application on n tract oil ouered
land but the second applicant is gwen
proper Information and an opportunity 10
bid moro per acre than did the first ap-
plicant and the first applicant is given
an opportunity, to meet this bid and II
he docs so and the price is satisfactory
10 the Board the first applicant is given
the preference.
Mr. Beckwth's application together
with the money paid in by him were re-
turned 10 him OF July IA, 1903, and he
was Il that time informed by your Board
that Ncbeker had applied first and that
IL he, Bcckwith, desired to apply he must
on July 10. 1909 Bcckwith's upplics
ton was again received In your office IN
which appllca ton BcclSwith offered $500
per acre for the $50 acres. Ills applica-
lion was received and was given the No.
1888 and on July 90, 1909, your office no
tilted Ncbcler of this bid made by Beck
with and Aug .. 1909. Ncbekcr made This
bid OF $500 per acre. and deposited in
your Office the additional amount re-
puircd,
On Sept 9Th. 1909. your Board decided
10 sell this land 10 Ncbelser for $500 per
acre. that is for the $50 acres for which
competitive bids had been received and
the balance of the 600 acres. that is 80
acres for $3.50. and accordingly Ccrtif- |
cate of sale No. 1879 was issued TO
Frank X. Nebcker which certificate has
not yet been delivered, MIR BcckWiths |
deposit WAS returned 10 him.
You desire my opinion us to whether |
or no nc ccrtihcatc so issued should he
delivered TO Mr.. Nebekcr.
II appears In me that your office should |
have made a record of the application of |
Frank * Nebeker on the 9Th day Of July, |
even though the application was made |
upon the wrong blank, and he should |
have been given reasonable time In |
which 10 have filed in your office the
application upon the proper blank and |
should have been given priority over any
other applca ton in the meantime. the
application having been made as far rs
appears In absolutely good faith: / am
OF the opinion that your office acted |
properly In giving him the priority upon
his filing I'm your office an applicatio
upon the proper blank and Mr.. Nebeker
having met the hid of Beckwith at 500
per acre. in my opinion is entitled tn the
carilllcaln Thia Mnull be