OCR Text |
Show 476 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT The degree to which the settlement laws were being misused was bad enough, as contemporary evidence suggests, but Sparks seemed to assume that practically all entries were being made for illegitimate purposes, neglecting the obvious fact that settlement and farm making were proceeding in the Great Plains and the states farther west at a rate only exceeded by that of the 1870's. The public lands were being transformed into farms as the authors of the Homestead Act had anticipated, though in the process the costs of the land were higher than if the laws were not misused. Those who wished to strike at Sparks could hardly favor the reduction of appropriations for investigating agents, but his general order of suspension was vulnerable or at least it could be made to appear vulnerable. In their effort to force him out of the administration and to repeal the suspension order, as Sparks says in his report for 1886, "Circulars were issued and sent broadcast to local attorneys and land and money brokers, laying out a plan of campaign, advising them to cause letters to be written to Senators and Representatives" protesting the suspension of entries and the issue of patents, and "representing the hardships to settlers resulting from such action." Hundreds of letters of protest were sent to members of Congress and were given publicity.40 The heat was on and Lamar and Cleveland felt it was politically wise to abandon the suspension order. The New York Times felt the revoca- similar orders of withdrawal of lands from entry and showing how most such withdrawals had been made at the request of entire state delegations. But when the power of withdrawal is used "to save public lands ... from the grasp of speculation and monopoly and preserve them for actual settlement ...," it is called into question. Land Office Report, 1886, pp. 135-89, esp. 145. One may only admire the legal and research staff Sparks had at hand in compiling some of his state papers, though sometimes their talents were used for polemical purposes. 40 Land Office Report, 1886, p. 48. tion of Sparks' order by Secretary Lamar was "intentionally severe and even offensive," in effect a reprimand of Sparks for causing the administration so much unpopularity in the West, and regarded it as a "comfort for thieves." Tactless as usual. Sparks called the revocation premature, resulting from the great pressure of "sharps, speculators, sharks, land grabbers and other scoundrels who were interested in the stealing of the public domain by fraudulent land entries." He would, he declared, never certify for patent any case that was tainted by fraud.41 Sparks did not give up easily, notwithstanding repeated attacks on the floor of both Houses of Congress and diminishing support from his superior. His report for 1886 contains a painstaking examination of the surveying system, showing instance after instance of incompetent and fraudulently run surveys that would have to be done over again, and continued misuse of the preemption law to acquire large tracts of land. Sparks recommended the reopening of private land claims in California that had been patented 29 years earlier because of alleged fraud that only appeared after the claims were confirmed and patented, and asked for a large increase in funds to employ special agents for investigation of fraudulent entries of land. When Kansas and Nebraska Representatives attacked him for requesting additional appropriations, Sparks declared that the funds available would employ "a force so utterly inadequate as to be almost a mockery of effort."42 Unlike his predecessors who placed first emphasis upon salary increases for the top officers of the Land Office including the Commissioner, and who also asked for large increases in the number of positions, Sparks said nothing about his own salary but urged that the chief clerks be given the same salary as persons of comparable 41 New York Times, April 8, 10, 12, 1886. 42 Land Office Report, 1886, pp. 16-107. |