MEMORIAL OF J. M. HUTCHINGS.

To Hon. FRANCIS GILTNER,

Chairman of Assembly Yosemite Committee:

SIR: Inasmuch as some of the Commissioners of Yosemite have thought proper to make to you a statement that is not substantiated by the facts of the case, I invite your attention to the following:

It is not for me, or they, to decide whether the Legislature of California, in concert with Congress, the original owner and grantor of the land in question, can or cannot unite in disposing of a portion, or even the whole of said valley, if they see fit, both being parties to the original bargain. Nor does it now become a question whether or not Congress, after throwing open all unreserved public lands of the United States, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, to the bona fide settler, under the general Pre-emption Laws of the United States, can or cannot revoke that right after the settler has, in good faith, entered into actual possession, without a violation of at least an implied contract. That is not for the Commissioners or myself to decide, but the Supreme Court of the United States.

But, in justice to myself and Lamon, it is my duty to say that "it is not true" that we, as settlers, "on the one hand, have never fulfilled the requirements of the Pre-emption Laws of the State." The State has no Pre-emption Law. "While, on the other hand, it has never been sur, veyed, and could not, therefore, be pre-empted under the United States laws." Before Vice President Whitney or Secretary Cleaveland state the above axiom as a fact in law, I respectfully refer them to the United States Statutes at Large, eighteen hundred and sixty-two (page four hundred and ten, section seven), where the following words are recorded: "And be it further enacted, That in regard to settlements which by existing laws are authorized in certain States and Territories upon unsurveyed lands, which privilege is hereby extended to California, the preemption claimant shall be," etc. The Act goes on further to state the duties required from pre-emptors after the land has been surveyed by the United States. But as the land in question, according to the testimony of the Commissioners, "has never been surveyed," there were no duties required from us except actual residence upon the land in common with all other settlers. This, I presume, those gentlemen will not deny. Therefore, the statement that we have "never fulfilled the requirements of the Pre-emption Laws" is simply untrue. At the most, it would have been but a technical quibble if the statement had been true.

Then, again, "it is not true," as stated in their communication, that "there are several claims of parties to different portions of it (the valley); some of which they believe to be as equitable as that of Hutchings." Now, although the above wording is very unique in its deceptiveness, the Commissioners know that in point of fact it is "untrue." They know that Lamon and myself are the only actual settlers; they know that we are the only persons against whom suits of ejectment have been commenced. And wherefore? Simply because we were the only actual residents, and consequently the only bona fide settlers who could have any claim under the Pre-emption Laws. It is true, however, that Black has interests there which he rents during the season to different parties; but Black resides some thirty miles from Yosemite.

The Commissioners therefore "believe" that he is a settler, and enti

tled to the same rights as those who have lived permanently upon the land. I think not. The wonder is that they should stoop to such a misrepresentation of facts.

Further, the Commissioners say "it is not true that Hutchings and Lamon have furnished the only accommodations to visitors." Did we ever affirm that we had? Were I to say that "it was not true that Professor Whitney had swallowed an antediluvian fossil and the stony composite had worked its way into his heart," by implication it might appear that he or some one else bad said as much; but would that make it a fact? I repeat, therefore, that we never made such a statement, and consequently such should not have been implied.

Again, they remark, "It is not true that the Commissioners have acted harshly towards Hutchings and Lamon." Here I hope they will allow me to say that, in doing their supposed duty, I believe no harshness was intended; still, when a man receives from them such a threat as the following he is apt to think that it might have been more kindly put, considering his long and earnest services in the cause: "Please inform him (meaning myself) that (if I refuse to take a lease, etc) the Commissioners will, during the coming Winter, take such steps as they see fit for procuring a suitable tenant for the house he now occupies, and will take all necessary measures for installing him (the new tenant) in possession early in the coming Spring." In other words, they would let the very house I live in-my house-the home where my family resides, with all my outbuildings, orchard, garden, etc., to some one else. Now that may be a very kind way of putting it—but I don't see it. For inasmuch as those things were mine-not theirs-not even the land, if the Pre-emption Laws mean anything, and inasmuch as the Constitution provides "that no person shall be deprived of his liberty or property without due process of law," such a threat was, to say the least, a little premature. To my ear and heart it accorded more with the language of highwaymen than of considerate gentlemen who, having a painful duty to perform, did it reluctantly.

I do not wish, however, to think harshly or unkindly of their action. They might have felt that they simply did their duty. But there is one thought and feeling ever present to my mind-the duty I owe to my family. I an striving for a home-now endeared to me by so many happy memories and pleasant duties-and I would be unworthy of the sacred trust if I faltered one iota in seeking to obtain by all honorable means one little spot of land-the birthright of every American citizenwhere my family and myself can dwell together in contentment and

peace.

Then, again, these gentlemen speak of the munificent offer of a lease of ten years at a nominal rent. It may be a "munificent" offer; but inasmuch as, according to their own report, "keeping a public house has not been, nor is likely for some time to be, a matter of profit," I cannot see the munificence of the proposal. Besides, it will take ten years to make such improvements as the public wants require. Our orchards will then be, most likely, at their best stage of productiveness. To whom would they and all other improvements belong-to us or to the State? To lease for a term of ten years would be virtually to "alienate" the portion leased for the time being. This would continue, doubtless, for "all time," unless the State should go into the business of hotel keeping, etc., on their own account. Therefore, where is the advantage over owning the land? Then, again, I think there are but few men living, and I frankly

confess that I am not one of them, who could, or would, work and manage as well upon other people's land as upon their own.

If, too, as the Commissioners think, there is going to be such a wonderful increase in the number of visitors, the amount of forage necessary for animals must be increased. For instance: out of the one hundred and sixty acres which I ask for, but little more than half is good land, and of that half there are not over twenty acres that produce good grass. Eight tenths of the "good land" is covered with a dense growth of fern, that would require an expenditure of from seventy dollars to one hundred dollars per acre to prepare and seed it with grass. should like to ask those gentlemen who think so much about a "lease," how many acres of such land would probably be broken up under a ten years lease?

I

In conclusion, I would respectfully suggest to the Commissioners that it would better comport with the feelings and education of gentlemen if they were to discuss these questions fairly and honorably, upon their own merits, than to seek to injure either Lamon or myself by misstating of facts, either directly or by implication, whereby they perpetrate a wrong, not only upon us, but upon themselves. Our memorial is before the public; it is sworn to by us, and its truthfulness is attested by over one hundred of the most influential citizens of Mariposa County, to whom the facts, doubtless, are as well or perhaps better known than to many others further away from our beautiful valley.

Respectfully,

J. M. HUTCHINGS.