History of public land law development

page 68

68 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT tion and intrusion," the disposition to "seize upon the public lands," he urged that unless the practice was halted and the intruders removed "their numbers may be so great as to defy the power of the United States." "The most efficient and immediate measures" should be taken to remove them; any reluctance to "inflict the calamities, necessarily attendant on an abrupt and forcible removal, of men, women and children from their possessions" would be dangerous.20 Even southern toleration of squatting seems to have declined under the pressure of the need for revenue. But all the power and might of the government could not halt a practice followed so long by southerners as they moved westward in their search for land. Successive Congresses, Presidents, and the courts had to deal with the question and gradually gave way. In 1841, Congress abandoned the position its predecessor had taken in 1785, by sanctioning squatting anywhere on the surveyed public lands.21 Compromises with Revenue Policy Despite its failure to protect the interests of the man with no money, the Ordinance of 1785 was a major step forward. It included the best features of the New England land system: prior survey before disposal, numbered townships of 36 square miles and sections of 640 acres, the public auction, the minimum price, and the grant of one thirty-sixth of the lands for schools. Although the need for revenue was stressed in shaping the Land Ordinance, it must be noted that compromises with a straight revenue policy were made at the outset. The veterans of the Revolution had been promised generous bounties for their services and the promise had to be kept. Conse- quently, Congress created the United States Military Tract, an area of a million acres from which there would be no revenue. The Military Tract, the Virginia Military District, and the Connecticut Western Reserve, all in Ohio, amounted to more than a third of that state's land. These reserves not only produced no revenue for the national government, but drew settlers and other land buyers who might otherwise have gone to the areas where there was United States land for sale.22 Finally, Congress granted a total of 85,120 acres to Canadian and Nova Scotian refugees who had sided with the American states during the Revolution, to Moravian Indian missions, and to A. H. Dohrman, a Dutchman who had given aid to American citizens abroad during the war.23 It should also be noted that the United States could not immediately derive revenue from lands for sale under the ordinance because, unlike lands in New York and Virginia, they had to be surveyed, and that was to be a time-consuming business. The Ordinance and Speculation It cannot be said that the sale of land by townships was included in the Ordinance of 1785 to favor speculators. New England migration to the frontier of Vermont or Maine in the late 18th century was a group movement, and as late as the thirties and 20 Clarence E. Carter (ed.), The Territorial Papers of the United States (Vol. I, Washington, 1934-) II, 27. 21 5 Stat. 453. Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years, pp. 139-87, is excellent on the problem of intruders on Indian land. 22 Payson J. Treat, The National Land System (New York, 1910), pp. 337-39, brings out that in the Virginia Military Tract 3,770,000 acres were located by holders of Virginia military bounty warrants, and warrants for 2,530,000 acres were exchanged for scrip which was subject to location on public lands elsewhere. In addition to this, Congress ceded to Ohio in 1871 the 76,735 acres in the tract that had not been exchanged for warrants. This makes a total of 6,376,735 acres which should be deducted from Virginia's cession, in addition to the 150,000 acres Virginia insisted should be set aside for George Rogers Clark and his troops. 23 Dohrman, 23,040 aqres; the Moravian Indian missions, 4,000 acres; and the Canadian and Nova Scotian refugees, 58,080 acres. W. E. Peters, Ohio Lands and Their Subdivisions (Athens, Ohio, 1918), pp. 212, 290, 299.