Testimony of Aaron Bell, late register of Shasta land office, California, relative to agricultural, mineral, and timber lands, and irrigation.

Mr. AARON BELL, late register of Shasta land office, testified as follows, October 2, 1879:

I have been in the United States Land Office ten years and over, and register of this office for six years past, until within a month or two, resigning the office to accept a posi tion on the bench. The general character of the unsold public lands in this land district would be mountainous timber land, with some good agricultural land, what you would call second and third grade agricultural lands. I would say that there was one-fourth of it agricultural land. These agricultural lands are adapted to the raising of anything that is raised in this climate, as wheat, barley, oats, hay, fruit, and vegetables. The lands in this northern country are extra lands for wine culture. It is very good also for cereals. Wheat would average twenty bushels to the acre, annual crops. We do not have to resort to irrigation except for vegetables. The average rainfall this year was about eighty-four inches. Last year there was ninety-six inches and over. That would not be so all over the district. There is a greater rainfall in this place than there is probably in any other section of the State. Some valleys in this district will raise more wheat than is stated above. For the purpose of irrigating vegetables, water is obtained out of torrent streams. There is but little difficulty arising out of the adjustment of water rights. The laws of this State generally regulate the supply of water. In order to obtain a water right in this State, it is requisite that a person shall post a notice at the intended place of diversion, and in that notice he must state where and for what he is going to use the water, and the size of the ditch, which is measured under a four-inch pressure, miner's measure; and he is required to commence work on the ditch within sixty days from the time of posting the notice, and also required within ten days from the time of posting the notice to record a copy of it in the county recorder's office for the county in which the water right is situated. He must then, within sixty days, commence work on the ditch and work continuously until completion, except he be interfered with by deep snows. These things give him a right to the use of the water against all other parties.

Question. The unlimited right?-Answer. Yes, sir; against every person excepting the United States.

Q. Can he take it in any quantity that ditch will flow and use it for any purpose?A. Yes, sir; if he is the first locator he can. He must make the use of it that he stated in his notice. When he ceases to use it the right ceases, but he can use it at his own discretion. The oldest location carries with it a right to take as much for actual use as the locator sees fit. In other words, he has the exclusive right to whatever water his ditch will flow. He cannot enlarge that ditch afterward, as against subsequent parties. If there is not water enough to furnish that first man with water for artificial purposes, as against the second person wanting it for natural purposes, he can use all the water his ditch will carry. The use indicated is not necessarily accompanied by the ownership of the land. It would be possible for a party, under the State law, to take up the whole stream without acquiring any land, and deprive any person purchasing laud from the United States of its use without himself owning any land. There are some considerable bodies of public land in this district which are rendered useless to purchasers unless water privileges are purchased from the owners of ditches. About one-third, if not more, of the lands remaining unsold in this district are what I would call timber lands, and about nine-tenths of the land in this district is still unsold. It is mostly mountainous land that is not fit for any purpose or use. Some might be used for the purpose of pasturage but a great deal would be of no use whatever, being rocky and barren, having neither timber nor grass upon it. Nearly one-fourth of the land unsold would be in this condition. About one-tenth, or very nearly one-tenth, of the lands in this district are non-mineral in character.

Q. How large a part of the district has been reserved, by withdrawals, for mineral purposes-A. I cannot say any of it has been withdrawn for mineral purposes in this district.

Q. Does not this fall within the general belt of reservations made for mining purposes, as designated, which would put the onus of proof upon an agricultural applicant-A. That is so as regards the whole district. Applicants for agricultural claims are required to file an affidavit of the non-mineral character of the land. My experience in connection with the administration of the land laws leads me to the opinion that at the present time the existing land system is not the best that could be adopted as regards this State, in the matter of restricting sales to agricultural settlers in one-hundred-and-sixty-acre tracts, for the reason that the better portion of agricultural lands have already been taken up and the remainder that are agricultu ral in character are of a second and third grade, and a great deal would be classed perhaps as more valuable for grazing purposes than any other. For grazing purposes one hundred and sixty acres of land is not enough. That amount would be totally inadequate.

Q. Under a system that purports to extend 160 acres only to a settler, how many different claims can a man in fact get?-A. He can get a homestead of 160 acres and a pre-emption of 160 acres more. There is but little land in this district that could be taken up under the timber culture act, because land destitute of timber would be hard to find. I do not know of any desert land. As regards additional homesteads a man may locate them without restriction, and so with Sioux and Valentine scrip. So that in fact, under the present law, there is no bounds (except a money availability) to the amount of land a man may acquire. I think it would be best if the government should take away the restriction as to the amount of land and the whole land in this district should be reduced to one dollar and a quarter per acre. The lands actually valuable have been bought up at $1.25. I think a system of putting the land up at a fair valuation would work more advantageously to the poor man than the present one does. Under the present system a poor man can only acquire 160 acres, while a rich man may acquire as much as he pleases. Up to the present time I think about one-third of the filings made in this office or a little over that number have been consummated. A great many of the balance have been abandoned. Unless it was the intention of the government to give settlers the right to take more than one claim, or 320 acres of land, I do not think that there would be any occasion for both the homestead and pre-emption law to remain in operation. Were one abolished, and the amount of land represented by both given by the remaining one, it would be better for the settler.

Q. Were any of the lands in this district offered at public sale; and, if so, at what time and in what proportion?-A. They were offered from 1859 up to 1867, and there is now a little offered land remaining unsold. The lands sold since this office was opened have been in very small quantities. I do not know that we bave sold over 320 acres to any one person, but there were entries made here before this office was open, by parties, in large quantities. I am of the opinion that a system of private entry would not tend to create a monopoly of lands-at least such as are in this district. I do not know of any special benefits to be obtained by the present law requir ing settlers to advertise in newspapers. I think it puts them to some trouble and expense without any corresponding good to the settler or to anybody else. They have to pay the printer for the publication, and the whole expense of advertising the publie lands has ranged from three to ten dollars. My idea is it is an imposition of an expense without corresponding benefit.

As regards the cancellation of a homestead entry, I could never see any necessity for sending the case away from the local officers, who generally have the whole matter before them and understand it fully, when it is canceled; that is, unless there is a contest. The present system tends to speculative frauds, and the parties who initiate an attack upon an abandoned homestead do not always get the homestead; other parties frequently step in and get the benefit of it. I think the law should give the person who makes the application to have the homestead canceled the privilege of making the entry for, say, ninety days. If it is necessary that it should be passed upon at Washington, his application could be received subject to the cancellation, and the application dated back.

A great many of the mineral lands here are placer and lode, the greater portion being placer. It is deep gravel mining-principally deep hydraulic mining. They have some difficulty in hydraulic mining as regards dumpage, by reason of running the tailings on other people's land. Those difficulties are generally settled in court, and the courts here generally give the parties the right to an outlet and the right to dump tailings on the land of another, if they are satisfied they could not utilize the mine without such right, by paying whatever damage they may do. Most of the dumpage of tailings is on lands totally inadequate to cultivation, but not having mineral under them they are only subject to agricultural entry. Some provision should be made in this State for selling agricultural lands. It would greatly facilitate the sale of placer mines. I know of cases where there have been suits between the agriculturists and mineral men arising out of this kind of difficulty. Sometimes the tailings are run on quite good agricultural lands. As regards the inter val between the dumpage and the mine-where the agriculturist takes up the land-it is generally done to blackmail the mine; but I do not know of any such in this district.

I think that it will be better to abolish the local customs and rules under which miners commence their titles, because there often is a different custom and rule in different places. Take the records of a given district-at one time they have all been written out, but they have become lost or destroyed, and one can hardly know what they are, and the local records should all be abolished. The districts are all the way from a mile to six miles square, just as the miners happen to take the notice; so that, under the present local laws and regulations, it is possible for a space of six miles quare to be subjected to a new system of laws adopted arbitrarily by men to subserve their own purposes. There is no guarantee for the security of the records kept by the recorder. There is no provision in this State for the transfer of the custody in case of his death or departure, and no security against their destruction or manipulation;

and yet, under the present system, the United States has to accept any certified copy of that record as the whole foundation of a claim, which I think is a great absurdity; and in my judgment the whole thing should be transferred to the United States and let the parties commence there in the first instance. It would be best, and avoid unnecessary conflict between miners, to require them to commence with an official survey in the first instance, so as to avoid any overlapping of mines, though there should be some provision to make them as little expensive as possible. It would be well to provide by statute what the cost of survey should be. The usual expense of a survey now varies according to what a man sees fit to charge. It runs from twenty to forty, and even to sixty dollars.

In cases of controversy arising between claimants to land or mineral claims, I think they should be adjusted by the Land Department. It would be a proper place and a great deal less expensive to parties, and nine out of ten would prefer it. I have no idea of the period of time it takes for the courts to settle such controversies, though I know of some who have been in the courts for the last six months and no decision reached yet. It is quite costly to many, much more so than it would be to contest a case in the Land Office. The jurors who pass upon a case are likely to have their views in the matter-the district court here, for instance; the only thing they decide is as to the right of possession. In fact I have known cases to be tried when I knew that neither one of the parties had complied with the United States land laws in locating their claims or in working them, and the courts will decide such a one is entitled to possession, and he comes in and files the judgment of the court and gets a patent without complying with the regulations and the laws at all. If the same party had undertaken to come here and make proof that he had complied with the law, he could not have done it.

Q. Do or do you not see any reason, Mr. Bell, why the mineral lands should not generally be sold in the same manner as agricultural lands, in sectional tracts?-A. I know of none. I think it would tend to prevent litigation and render mining very

secure.

Q. Are there any mines in this district that would be imperiled by restricting them to their side lines, provided you gave them sufficient tract to protect them in ordinary deep mining ?-A. I know of none. Deep mining has not progressed here very far. I do not suppose there is a mine in this district being worked that is one hundred feet down on the vein, and even under the present law twenty-one acres would protect them for an indefinite period. There is often much hostility between lode claims where they cross each other, as they often do in various directions. The angle at which a lode dips in this district varies considerably. They have no uniform dip. There are no flat lodes; I think all are true fissure veins.

Q. What is your opinion as to the applicability of the timber laws to the public uses and to governmental interests in the future?-A. I think this act for the sale of timber lands is a very good one. However, they have never taken advantage of it in this district. I do not consider the law inopportune unless for a man who is engaged in the timber business, and in that case he should be allowed to purchase more than one hundred and sixty acres. That is the only objection I have to that law. There is no doubt that this law by giving permission to cut timber for purposes of mining, domestic, and agricultural uses tends to create an unlimited trespass under the color of law. There are no means of determining the character of the lands except by unsupported evidence. These things have been called to our attention, but we could not tell whether it was mineral or not, and without proper complaint to us we can take no notice of it.

If the effort was made to enforce the law for trespassing upon mineral lands, I think, as a general thing, the effort would substantially fail; either by reason of the infirmities of the law or by lack of public sympathy. As a general rule the efforts on the part of public officers to enforce that law would be inoperative.

I think the timber lands would be better protected if they were reduced to private ownership. I am satisfied there would be less waste and destruction. In this country fires are set and destroy much timber. It is hard to tell how they originate. They destroy thousands of acres of timber lands, and no one feels interested in trying to stop them. This summer I traveled over a place where miles of timber had been destroyed by fire. I do not know how long it takes timber to reproduce itself in this section. The timber is generally pine; some sugar-pine and white and yellow and spruce pine, and some fir. There have been large bodies of these timber lands taken up by additional homestead entries in this district, and also by the agricultural college act of this State. Titles to many of these locations have been secured by patent under the homestead right, but under the agricultural college act I do not know that any have

been secured.

Q. What would you think of reserving alternate sections of valuable timber to the United States and selling the timber on the others, reserving all title to the soil-A I think that would work; but, as a general thing, the land here is not worth much after the timber is taken off. It might be valuable to the government to reserve it

for the protection of growing timber upon the same land. I think a person would get, as much for the timber as he would for the timber and land. The mines are usually located among the timber. It would therefore be necessary sometimes to insert a reservation of the mineral, even though the land were sold; otherwise you would be disposing of the mineral lands while selling the timber. In other words, reserve the right for miners to prospect and develop the lands the same as now. There is no doubt but what there is a great deal of land that people would want only for the timber, and would pay as much for the timber as for both the wood and land. The timber in this district is generally marketed at Red Bluff, carried there by flumes, and I think at Tahama and Chico, and it is generally shipped from there by railroad."

Q. Can you suggest any ways in which the administration of the settlement laws can be made any more economical and expeditious for the benefit of settlers, either by the new law or a modification of the present system?-A. I think the buyer could be more readily accommodated by selling the land at private entry, or a portion of it at least. If they were sold at private entry they might select the amount for themselves to prevent their getting into the hands of monopolies, though in this district it has not generally had that effect where large bodies of land were sold. I do not think that idea of monopoly is a practical danger. If a person sought lands for speculative purposes he would almost at once seek customers, and would be more active even than the government would be. My opinion is, taking into consideration the lands in this district, that there would be no danger in throwing them open to private entry. I think it would be a good thing, and I think that the price should be reduced to $1.25 uniformly. At present the price of $2.50 per acre is too much. The land is not worth that. The bulk of lands in this district, forty miles wide, are within railroad limits, and are only subject to entry at $2.50, the even sections. I think it would tend to the more speedy development of the public lands if the government could make arrangements with the railroad companies to take the land on one side of their roads, or aggregate the lands on each side into alternate blocks. It is often the case now that a party does not buy the government section because he does not know at what price he can buy the railroad lands adjoining. A system of alternate sections between the Government and the railroad tends to prevent the sale of lands rather than to facilitate their disposition. It would be much better for the railroad and for the government to each get their lands in a body.

I would suggest the following: There are great masses of lands in this district and other districts in the State in which there are some mineral. Some portions of these lands might be more valuable for agricultural than for mineral purposes, but it is all returned as mineral land. I think such land should be disposed of to the settler without requiring proof of its character, and let him do with it what he pleases. The settlers are often put to great cost and expense in disproving the alleged mineral character of lands they desire to possess, and I believe they should be allowed to pre-empt a homestead, or purchase it without inquiry being made whether it was mineral or not in character. I think it would be better for the government, either when it surveys the land or in some other practical manner, to classify it and afterward to stand by the classification, although it might not be right. It would still be better for the government interest and cheaper for the settler.

Q. Under the present system, do you, in point of fact, pay any attention to the clas sification made by the surveyors ?-A. Yes, sir. For instance, they return a towns ip as mineral land. A homestead applicant comes in to make an entry, and we do not allow him to make it until he disproves the mineral character of the land. As a matter of fact, we allow the surveyor's official report to be put on trial at the instance of any person who attacks it, although the surveyor is sworn to the correctness of it; it only throws the proof on the other side. Under the present law, I do not know how a classification established by law upon reports that were not proven to be fraudulent would work, but I think it would be beneficial as a general thing. The lands here are put upon the market at $2.50 per acre, which is the same price that we ask for mineral lands for placer mines, and I never could see any good reason for putting the settler to the expense of disproving the mineral character of the land when he has to pay the same price for it as though he was buying it for the mineral. I think that part of it should be abolished.

Q. In your judgment, would or would it not be well to cut off these possessory mining titles and fix some limit of time within which claimants must consummate their titles?-A. I would say that when a mining claimant makes his application there should be a time set within which he could make his final proof and payment for the claim. As it is now, he makes his application, which withdraws that land from sale or entry, and never pays for it, perhaps. There are many such cases on file in this office now, and perhaps the lands involved in them will never be paid for.

As regards placer mining, I would make a rule that where a man works a claim continnonsly he should be required to pay up within a reasonable time, but where the claim is of little or no value they should not be required to acquire title of the United States at once. The government price for the land is a small price, and I think a man

should pay for it; and while there should be some limit to the time a man may work a mine without paying for it, and the government should be liberal to him in the way of time, just as they do in pre-emption and homestead cases, he should not be allowed to keep the land for any considerable time without compensating the government. I think it would be well if a new law was introduced to fix some limit of time within which all these old claims should be consummated or else wiped out, or some similar arrangement made.

Q. Is it very expensive to mineral claimants under the present system of making out their abstracts of title?-A. I think it is; and I think it could be simplified in some way. So far as filing their abstracts of title is concerned, I never could see, for my part, the necessity of doing that. For instance, a party comes in and makes an application, and the names of claimants are set forth in that. In adverse claims, parties are required to come in and file their adverse claims within a certain time. If no adverse claims were filed, and the parties desired to push the matter to conclusion, the idea would be to allow them to made the entry without going to the expense of making up their showing. That publication, without conflict on the part of others, should be sufficient evidence of their possession of a mine.

Testimony of C Bielawski, draughtsman in United States surveyor-general's office, San Francisco, Cal., relative to surveying the public lands.

UNITED STATES SURVEYOR-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

San Francisco, Cal., October 17, 1879.

Honorable Public Land Commission appointed by act of Congress approved March 3, 1879: GENTLEMEN: Having been asked by you for my opinion about the system used heretofore of surveying the public lands, and for some suggestions for improving the same, I beg to state:

1st. That the present rectangular system, if faithfully executed in accordance with surveying instructions, is the best and most economical one to prepare vast and sparsely populated lands for settlement. This system has been tried for a long period of time, and the simplicity of its construction, as well as the practical way in which it exhibits the boundaries of the lands subdivided, made it so familiar and I may say so useful to our people, that it has become a part of their elementary education.

2d. If this system is faithfully executed, the four miles bounding every square mile will be found so well blazed, when passing through wooded wilderness, in all cases so well marked every half mile by substantial and prominent corners, and their topography as well as the quality of the land generally so well described, that everybody in search of a new home, and provided with a few notes obtainable at the land offices, can easily follow the same, and in such a way find out by himself which parcel of land will best suit his purposes.

3d. To require more extended topographical details in the survey and a more scientific research about the quality of the soil and other resources of the land than the present system prescribes, would double or even treble the expenses of the same without any remunerating practical results for the settler.

And besides that, I am of the opinion that minute topographical surveys and other scientific researches, except along the coast for navigation purposes, should not be made by the United States in the subdivision of public lands; and that they should properly be executed by the people of the State in which these lands are situated.

As soon as a State becomes sufficiently populated, it certainly will not omit to develop its resources and institute geological surveys, irrigation schemes, and settle débris, questions, as California is trying to do now; and its counties will gladly pay for accurate topographical maps and a true classification of the land for the sake of a just taxation.

4th. All the United States should do in leading the way of progress is to spread over the whole country a system of large trigonometrical triangles, the points of which, carefully determined as to latitude and longitude, should be permanently established on prominent landmarks, and their position and description communicated to the respective surveyor-generals.

This triangulation system, I believe now partially in process of execution, combined with a general scientific research, will form a substantial basis to connect the public surveys with and to correct the unavoidable geographical errors made in the latter. 5th. Having thus expressed my opinion about the merits of the present rectangular system of surveying, I now come to answer the question asked me:

Which way I thought best to execute the same, by salaried surveyors or by surveyors under contract?

My answer is, by surveyors under contract, controlled in the execution of their field