Year: 1871




listed to any State as swamp lands, aud
have been purchased of said State, patent
shall issue for said lands to said State for
the benefit of said purchasers; provided, that
when the amount sold to any settler or
purchaser shall exceed six hundred and forty
acres, the excess over such amount shall be
subject to the provisions of this Act. And
provided, that nothing herein contained shall
authorize or legalize the sale of any lands to
which any valid presumption or homestead
right has heretofore attached.


Under the first section there would be no
swamp land in the State of California. 1t is
all valuable for grazing or other agricultural
purposes at some seasons of the year! Under
it the land reclaimed at great cost in this
county, on Sherman island and elsewhere,
would "be restored to the public domain"
or, what would suit the honorable gentleman
better, to the railroad company. We have
heretofore shown, and any one can see at
glance, that it would not be necessary to
change the definition to protect settles. lfa
man can live on a tract of land, it is not
swamp, under the original Act of 1850, and
the very best proof TO offer would be the fact
that he did live there


But it was the third section of the Act
that we wanted to call general attention to.
We ask the reader to 60 back and re-read
that section. Could any attorney in the
employment of the railroad company have
done any better for them? Except few
little valleys claimed as swamp in the noun
tans, all the swamp land of the State comes
within the railroad grants, and that section
of the bill would, prima facie, give them the
land! 1t would be theirs without investiga-
tion, however swampy it might be. Now,
after giving the railroad company the prima
facie title to all the land, what else does this
attorney of theirs do? 1t would seem that
SO much would satisfy the most greedy but
they are not satisfied. They require their
attorneys to do for them what was never be-
fore put in any law in any State of these
United States, or any other civilized country.
We speak advsedly, and challenge Mr. Sar-
gent, or Mr.. Julian, cor any other man."
to show law in which the plaintiff is re-
quired to pay all the costs, whether success
tul Or not! Read the fourth section of the
bill, especially the last two lines. The rail.
road company is given prima facie Gaze
they would never ask for an investigation.
Every man who claimed any swamp land
would have to demand an investigation, and
then under section five the company could
compel the attendance of great number
of witnesses, and although the owner Of
land might prove it to he covered all the
year round with water as deep as the Pacific
ocean, he would have the witnesses ard
other costs of BOTH sides top pay! The COM
pany would not be out FIVE cent piece! We
say it is airocious VII :Tns We challenge
parallel in the whole nil .ory of legislation!
Who would ever 60 into the courts, if his
opponent had right to compel the attend
ancc of innumerable and distant witnesses
to create all the costs possible, and make
him pay ii, although he might make case
as pam as promssory note? This, then.
would give all the odd sections to the rail-
road company without opposition, except it
might be the few cases where large bodies
are held by rich companies. All the small
owners-al those who purchased just so
much as they expected to try to reclaim, or
could use fer grazing purposes would fall
without an attempt to 60 into such an une-
quail contest.


Nor can it be said that these things were
done in the interest of the settlers" about
whom these two worthless were so eloquent.
How easy it would have been to have said
that the fact of settlement should be conclu-
sve evidence of the arabic condition of the
land, and when such actual settlement was
proven, make the swamp cl imant pay all
costs, and for that matter, if it was determ.
med that such land should rot have been
claimed as swamp, give the actual "settler'
chance to get exemplary damages. We
suggested such a course long before this last
bill was fixed up, and pledged ourself to 60
heart and soul for any measure that con-
tempated the protection of the actual settler
from either the swamp land claimants or the
railroad company We yield to no man the
palm in the advocacy Of the rights Of the
settler. But the interests of the settlers
were not thought of by the originators Of
the bill we print above. They aimed higher
The protection of the "settler" would have
been simple and easy-no change of defni.
ton would have been required.


We ask the voters of the Second District
to study this bill over carefully, and If they
become satisfied, as we think they must,
that Mr.. Sargent vas working under the
instructions of the railroad company, to work
for bis defeat. If he would do so infamous
an act as the above for them against the in
terest of one class of citizens, what class can
put any dependence in him.


Grant an individual one kind of land, and
then. after he has spent his money upon it,
change the terms of the original grant, give
some one else prima facie title to it, and IL
the original owner wants to investigate under
the new departure, make him pay whatever
costs the other party may see proper to put
him TO-! What in all the scope of rascality
can bc more villainous? And can such
man get ANY votes for reelection?


.han, THERE ills s something , line i1exprsss1y sweet
iporonious uosucpoot;per f,,Il rc L;,~lco..