;3o 



FORESTRY AND IRRIGATION. 



August 



quired to accomplish their ends for the 

 grazing season of 1901 ; but to get back 

 into the reserve in 1902 they asked a 

 modification of the order of July 31, 

 1 90 1, so as to allow them to enter the 

 reserve, cross the public lands, and 

 reach the alleged private holdings. I 

 say alleged advisedly, for in many in- 

 stances the title to the land and the 

 right to use it is only alleged, and is 

 not and does not exist in fact. The 

 fact that it was simply an allegation, 

 which would not in all cases be borne 

 out by the facts, was laid before the 

 court, but the judge decided that the 

 petitioners should have the benefit of 

 the doubt as to the title to the land they 

 claimed to have leased or to own, and 

 on May 7, 1902, modified his order of 

 July 31, 1901, so as to allow the entry 

 of the sheep again in 1902, allowing 

 four sheep to each acre owned or leased 

 by the defendants. 



Four sheep to the acre ! Think of 

 that, and then say that the Sierra Forest 

 Reserve is not an ideal grazing ground. 

 My information is that it is an excep- 

 tional tract that will support more than 

 a sheep per acre for the grazing season, 

 and that usually two, three, and even 

 four acres are required to sustain a 

 sheep. In no regular application com- 

 ing before the Department of the Inte- 

 rior has the applicant asked to take into 

 his private holdings more than one sheep 

 to the acre. 



Tlie swamp and oversowed lands in 

 California were granted to the state, but 

 until the state receives its patent, or the 

 legal equivalent, a certification of the 

 lands to the state by the federal govern- 

 ment, the surveys may be questioned 

 and the grant simply remains in process 

 of adjudication, and the jurisdiction 

 over the land is in the Dand Department. 

 Except as shown hereafter, not a single 

 acre of the lands claimed has been pat- 

 ented to the state. In many instances 

 the state, assuming that the surveys 

 showing lands to be swamp lands would 

 be accepted as correct, has sold these 

 lands before the claim has been adjudi- 

 cated. There have been fraudulent 

 surveys, of which the state was in- 

 formed, notably the Benson surveys ; 

 yet the state has set up claims to lands 



shown by these sur^'eys to be swamp 

 lands and has sold or leased them. It 

 is these alleged swamp-land claims prin- 

 cipally that these defendants claim the 

 right to use whether by pwcliase or 

 lease from the state I am not advised. 

 Some of the tracts claimed by these de- 

 fendants have been sold by the state to 

 other parties, w^ho have used them as 

 bases for lieu selections, the tracts hav- 

 ing been redeeded to the United States. 

 In these cases, if the swamp-land claims 

 are good, the deeds will be accepted and 

 the title to the lands will remain in the 

 government. If the swamp-land claims 

 are found not to be good the said deeds 

 will be refused, because the land did not 

 pa.ss out of the United States under the 

 swamp grant. How, then, under any 

 conditions, can these defendants have 

 any right to uso^these tracts ? 



In other cases the state sold lands, 

 and the parties to whom sold used the 

 lands as bases for lieu selections. These 

 lieu selections were held for rejection, 

 because the base lands did not pass to 

 the state under the swamp grant, the 

 survey being fraudulent, and the right 

 of appeal was given. No appeal was 

 taken, and the case was closed. The 

 state could not thereafter assert any 

 title thereto ; yet these very lands are 

 among those claimed by one of the de- 

 fendants. 



Under the school-land grant each sur- 

 veyed section 16 passed to the state in 

 preseiiti. 



These defendaflts assert a claim to the 

 S. 3^, sec. 16, T. 7 S., R. 26 E., presum- 

 ably under lease or purchase from the 

 state. The state, however, had sold 

 this land to other parties, and it has 

 been redeeded to the United States as a 

 base for lieu selection. As to the other 

 tracts in question, the state has never 

 advised the General Eand Office that it is 

 laying any claim to them. If it is mak- 

 ing any such claim, it is probably rely- 

 ing upon the surveys as indicating their 

 swampy character. It is possible that 

 the state may have good claims to some 

 of these tracts, but until such claims, if 

 any exist, are tested by an examination 

 of the Land Office records, as in the 

 cases cited above, which cases show that 

 the court allowed these defendants to- 



