History of public land law development

page 242

242 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT The act authorized and empowered the Commissioner of the General Land Office "to determine upon principles of equity and justice, as recognized in courts of equity, and in accordance with general equitable rules and regulations, to be settled by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney-General, and Commissioner, conjointly consistently with such principles, and to adjudge in what cases patents shall issue upon the same." The act was to be in operation 2 years.61 A report on the suspended claims shows that of 2,161 preemption entries, 1,266 private entries which may have started as preemption entries and 23 donation claims were approved for patent. Of the earlier claims which were assignable, an estimated 5,640 acres went to Laurent Millauden whose entries with floats were mentioned before, 6,240 acres to John Slidell, and 800 acres to Joseph Slidell. Thirty-eight preemption claims and seven private entries were rejected, one in Missouri, 13 in the Mineral Point district of Wisconsin where they were crossed up with mineral lands, 16 in Louisiana, and 15 in Florida. The Commissioner noted that the rejected New Orleans entries were "gross frauds," ability to perform, he throws little light on the issues wracking Congress, the Land Office, and individuals and groups trying to gain ownership of land through preemption and other settlement laws. It would be interesting to know what accomplishments, if any, the Board may have made in the period of the greatest abuses in land entries. 81 Act of Aug. 3, 1846, 9 Stat. 51. L. B. True, one of the numerous claim lobbyists in Washington, wrote to Cyrus Woodman, a very large speculator in public lands in Wisconsin, that he had helped get the Act of 1846 through Congress, was familiar with the procedure of getting preemption claims approved, and could learn of any changes through friends in the Land Office. He proposed to Woodman that they unite in an agency to rush through claims they represented and to oppose those not brought to their attention through Woodman. He estimated there were between 1,500 and 2,000 cases in the Mineral Point land district alone and thought the appropriate charge might be $100 for each preemption. L. B. True, Washington, D.C., Oct. 17, 1846, to Cyrus Woodman, Woodman MSS., Wisconsin State Historical Society. some of the land not being in existence, other land having been sold previously. The 15 rejected Florida claims, the Commissioner noted, "have ever been regarded as illegal and void," but were later patented "under the force of writs of mandamus issued by Judge Woodward. . . ,"62 After all this experience in dealing with thousands of preemption entries, too many of which had become snarled in the inadequacy of the legislation providing for them, neither the Land Office officials nor Congress seemed able to draft a better measure than to extend the Act of 1846, first to August 3, 1849, and then to revive it on March 3, 1853, and to extend it for 10 years. Many in the West thought the officials were gagging at slight variations or exceptions; they were glad to see equity replace administrative uncertainty concerning the minute infractions, errors, or misjudgments based on ignorance of the requirements. If Congress thought it had drafted a measure that would make possible the settlement of all suspended entries under the various preemption laws, it was wrong. Under the Acts of 1830 and 1834 the land officers at New Orleans had accepted various entries, the certificates for which had passed to third and fourth parties who had placed substantial improvements on the land over the course of the next 10 years, while waiting for the confirmation and patenting of their claims. It was said assurances had been given when the Act of 1846 was under consideration, that it would apply to those Houma preemptions, and that the present owners could expect to receive patents for the lands. Unfortunately for the holders of these claims the Board of Adjudication seems to have found distinctions between them and other types of suspended entries-perhaps because the original entries were fraudulent-so that they 6iH. Ex. Doc., 31st Cong., 1st sess., Vol. Ill, No. 5, Part 2 (Serial No. 570), Nov. 29, 1849, pp. 30, 68-131, esp. 230 and 231.