here was an opportunity. Why did not the law, or the state land board, direct the clerk to furnish the necessary information as to available base to those purchasers whom it would be an advantage for the people of the state to have as land owners? But there was the old obsession that government was but a necessary evil. The less it had in hand the better. The state government had fallen heir to land. It must get rid of it. In selling it to do more than receive the money would have been pernicious activity. It would be usurping an opportunity belonging to< an individual. But remember in this land office base the intending purchaser must have. The records dis- closed it, and the clerk was in charge of them. The law forbade his taking a fee and did not compel him to give the information. A private individual, however, expert with the records had here a rich opportunity for traffic. For this base he could charge a price at least equal to the margin between the national and the state terms for the land. As the state law put the price per acre at half of that of the national government, this trafficker in base could get as much for the base as the state received as its share for the lands. 1 The law of 1887 was simply the scheme to create a good business opportunity for this seller of base. The scheme was simple and neat. Not one conscientious lawmaker in the ninety of the Oregon legislative assembly suspected anything wrong as the bill was read three times in each House. Were they all blind or was it their point of view?
The Trafficker in Base at the State Land Office. — This law of 1887 thus set up in the state land office one or more dispensers of base who preyed upon the innocent purchasers
1 "He (the clerk of the board) can not charge for information concerning state land matters or for letters pertaining to them. It is almost needless to assert the self-evident proposition that he cannot abnegate any of his duties in favor of an outsider and thereby get rid of them for any purpose, and especially to charge persons doing business with the office illegal fees, or to speculate in state lands. All such things go without saying, and yet there is sufficient evidence to establish a moral conviction, all over the state, that the clerks of the state board have been doing just those forbidden things from 1887 to 1895. It is a fact that during the last-mentioned period purchasers of lieu land paid more than the legal rate, $1.25 per acre. In some instances as high as $4 per acre were paid; $1.25 went to the state and the remainder to those in deal". Report of State Land Agent, T. W. Davenport, 1895-1896.
