OCR Text |
Show 630 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT first step toward allowing them to buy the land in the future.57 Congress was not inclined to open the rangelands to sale or to freeze existing rights in the use of the grazing districts or national forest ranges. Nevada livestock-men who had shown less interest in having the rangelands of part of that state included in the grazing reserves, changed their minds. To include the lands they used within the grazing districts an amending Act of May 28, 1954, removed the limitation of 142 million acres on the amount of public lands that might be included within them.58 Although there was much talk about restoring public land that had been withdrawn to mineral or other form of entry the statistics show that on balance the quantity restored to entry was small. During 1954 and 1955, 3,821,000 acres were restored to their original status, of which 2,181,000 were in Alaska and not in great demand. New withdrawals amounted to 2,416,000 acres, being largely in Arizona, Idaho, and Utah.59 During the period 1954-59 a total of 8,155,840 acres were withdrawn and 11,057,649 were restored to entry. Between 1948 and 1956 the number of cash sales increased from 350 to 6,041 and the acreage sold from 33,592 to 197,784. The Act of July 30, 1947, enlarging the maximum amount of scattered, noncontiguous land not capable of administration 87 Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay was reported in the Great Falls Tribune (Montana) to have spoken strongly against the original D'Ewart bill. In his first annual report as Secretary his position is not as clear. He spoke of the need for a reappraisal of the Federal lands "to determine which . . . should be retained in Federal ownership and which can be more economically and satisfactorily administered by transfer to State or private ownership." This and other statements were regarded by some as close to the D'Ewart-Butler plan of making much of the public land available to purchase by users. McKay's position may be seen in Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1953, pp. xxx and elsewhere. "68 Stat., Part 1, p. 151. 59 Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1954, pp. 269-70; and 1955, p. 268. that could be bought was partly responsible for the increase. The big increase in the number of sales was in the small tract purchases. Urban people were eager to acquire some land, particularly small tracts in the desert, in mountain areas, or elsewhere away from the crowded cities. In 1960 so strong was interest in small tract sales that 10,000 contracts for 38,000 acres were completed.60 Officials of the Department of the Interior urged reforms to safeguard and develop the natural resources for the public good. Land speculators have always been in the vanguard of settlers and land buyers, as this study has indicated in many places. Secretary Fred Seaton and Edward Wooz-ley, head of the Bureau of Land Management, were troubled by speculator attempts to accumulate homesites under the small tract laws by operating through others. Another dodge to which speculators resorted was that of buying small pieces of land and using them to acquire substantial tracts of public lands as adjoining owner preference rights under the Taylor Act. In Nevada a provision of the Desert Land Act had permitted "unscrupulous land locators" to bilk the public by unloading on them land wholly unfit for their use because of lack of water. The practice of making land exchanges under Section 8 of the Taylor Grazing Act, which had enabled people to acquire public lands at less than their market value and gain "windfall profits," was halted by a publicity program to "inform the public of their rights and privileges under the public land laws, and to ... implement the Department's anti speculation policy."61 Shorter workdays, paid vacations, and better pay were making it possible for an 50 Assembled from Reports of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Statistical Appendix, 1948-1956. Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1960, p. 243. 41 Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1960, pp. 236, 241. |