Washington's Public Lands Were Run by a Patchwork. Reformers Wanted One Powerful Board.

Olympia, March 11.—Special.—The joint committee of the house and senate which for several days has been investigating the state land department has completed its work and turned its report into the respective bodies. The findings are as follows:

First—That the local boards of tide land appraisers now in existence in some eighteen counties containing tide lands have been a source of unusual and, in our judgment, unnecessary expense, and that as a result of having a separate board for the appraisement of tide lands in each county containing the same we have found a great diversity of systems employed in the service and disparity in values at which the land has been appraised. These boards have been, under the law, each a separate independent organization over which neither the state board nor the commissioner of public lands has had any control or jurisdiction. They have employed clerks and surveyors for their own particular work, and we are of the unanimous opinion that the expense of this work has been much greater to the state than had it all been performed under some one authorized head; and we are of the unanimous opinion that these boards should forthwith be abolished, saving and excepting only from the immediate operation of a law abolishing the same the boards in King, Pierce and Chehalis counties, an exception being made in these cases for the reason that their work is now nearly at a stage of completion and to abolish them before they shall have fully completed their duties would perhaps be to undo a great deal that has been done and entail unnecessary expense for resurveys, platting, etc. We therefore recommend in these cases that they should be allowed to complete their work in their respective counties, provided the same shall be done on or before July 1, 1896.

Second—The result of our investigation leads us to believe that the seven land cruisers now provided for by law should lie forthwith abolished. Under the present system these cruisers are paid by the acre for their selection of land. This we believe to be an unwise system. We have further found from an investigation of the accounts of these cruisers that they have cost the state from March 14, 1893, to March 1, 1896, inclusive, the sum of more than $22,000. This we believe to be far in excess of the value of the services actually performed, and we recommend that in lieu of these seven cruisers the law should provide for the appointment by the governor of two cruisers of lands, who should be paid a salary sufficient to employ good, competent, trustworthy men, and we would suggest as such compensation the sum of $1,300 a year each, and their actual expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge of their duties. This we believe will effect a substantial saving in expense and result in more efficient service than under the present system. These cruisers should also be subject to removal by the governor.

Third—We are of the opinion that it would be in the line of economy and the results would be better to do away with the appraisers of school lands which are now provided for by law. The work of these appraisers could be done in many instances by members of the land commission, although in special cases it might be necessary to have appraisers appointed, and with that necessity in view we would recommend that the board should have the discretionary power of appointing an appraiser for any particular work, should occasion require.

Fourth—We have also arrived at the conclusion that the assistant attorneys general in the various land districts should be abolished and that the work now performed by them should devolve upon one attorney, who should be employed by or under the control of the state board and have general supervision and charge of the legal business connected therewith. In this connection we would recommend that the governor should be empowered to appoint such an attorney as the advisor of the state board upon its recommendation.

Fifth—So far as the tribunal or board which should have charge and control of the valuable landed interests of the state, we believe that the state's interests can be best subserved by the creation of a state land board, to be composed of the commissioner of public lands, who should be a member and the chairman thereof, and two other members to be appointed by the governor, and that these three commissioners should constitute such board and be charged with the many responsibilities pertaining to the selection, care, management, sale and leasing of the various state lands. We believe that there is no more important work confronting the citizens of this state than the proper and conservative handling of its public lands. There are still large areas of land to be selected under the various land grants of the federal government to this state. There are innumerable contests between the state and private parties to be tried in the land offices and courts. There are still large quantities of tide lands to be appraised, and nearly all of this class of lands are yet to be sold, but a small fraction thereof having been disposed of. The harbor areas have in no instances as yet been sold, and this work should be so done as to derive the greatest revenue and subserve the public good.

The committee found the offices of the present state land commissioner and the board, together with their records, books, maps and documents, in an excellent, clean and carefully kept condition. We find no cause for criticism in either of these departments or of the work which has been done there, and while we believe there are a number of reforms that could be inaugurated, yet we believe that the present laws have been observed as closely as possible, and that the law itself and not the officers is responsible for the defects in the system which exist. Experience has taught the heads of these departments, as well as most others who have had experience in that direction, that the present laws are in many respects crude and imperfect. This is especially true of the tide land act, out of which has grown many varied and complicated questions which have required decisions of the supreme court to settle.

The committee also reported that public lands have been sold almost entirely on the installment plan, by which one-tenth is paid down and contracts or notes given for deferred payments, so that the actual cash received amounts to but little over one-tenth of the total value of the lands sold. Under the tide land act there appears to be no method of enforcing payment or forfeiting contracts. It further found that prior to the creation of the present board school lands were leased by county commissioners, usually at very nominal sums, and that the present board had increased these same rentals by some $15,000. In many cases county commissioners had leased school lands, collected rents and turned the same into their own county treasuries without accounting to the state. The board had also been helpless to protect school lands from trespass and depredations because no appropriation had been made to prosecute offenders, and the committee recommended an appropriation of $5,000 for surveys of near townships so that the state might make selections before settlers pre-empted the best lands.