| OCR Text |
Show 142 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT others already had, in turning them over at a good profit. Prices were low after 1819, money was scarce, and goods in little demand in the West, but might not conditions revive soon? Secondly, while Congress had lowered the price of land to $1.25 an acre in 1820 and in the Act of 1821 had granted a remission of 37 Vi percent on the principal of contracts paid in full by 1822, it had not allowed this reduction to those debtors who relinquished a portion of their lands and took advantage of the long credits. On the other hand, there were some debtors who were so hopelessly in arrears and whose prospects looked so poor that in order to salvage anything from their investments it seemed wise to relinquish a large portion of their lands, reducing their obligations to a low annual payment. The peak of the land debt seems to have been reached on December 31, 1819, when it was $22,000,657. On December 31, 1820, it had fallen to $21,173,489. The big decline followed the adoption of the relief act of March 2, 1821. By September of that year the total debt was $11,957,430. A year later it had further declined to $10,544,454. Also, the 37J/2 percent discount was being taken advantage of by numbers of debtors so that by January 31,1823, payments had been completed on 290,120 acres.50 Generous as these terms were, debtors who did not relinquish a portion of their lands or who failed to meet their payments under the Act of 1821 when due, were in danger of forfeiture and loss of previous payments. Further extensions of time in which to file application for relinquishment had to be allowed such debtors in 1822 and 1823. Then in 1824, with forfeitures and reversions again looming dangerously high, Congress allowed debtors who had already refinanced their obligations under the Act of 1821 or subsequent relief measures to relinquish a part of their land, provided the payments already made were sufficient to meet the obligations 29. 50 American State Papers, Public Lands, III, 645; IV, on the remainder, or that cash payment was made in full. In such cases the 37J/7 percent reduction would be allowed on the payment. An additional 1,140,749 acres were relinquished under this act and the outstanding obligations were down to $6,322,675 on June 30, 1825.51 Reversions and forfeitures continued notwithstanding additional extensions of relief measures. Consequently in 1826 Congress went still further in an Act of May 4, which allowed any person who had renegotiated his purchase contract, but had lost through forfeiture other tracts, to redeem them by paying the balance due, minus the 37 Vi percent. Finally, the ultimate was conceded by Congress in 1828 and 1832 when it provided that all persons who had lost money on land contracts through forfeiture should be granted certificates for their losses, receivable for the purchase of land (essentially land office money).52 The government's experience with credit sales ended in 1832. Both speculators and settlers had tried to acquire as much land as their resources and the credit allowed them permitted. The government had done nothing to discourage speculative purchases and in fact it had thrown open to entry huge areas and invited all to buy without limit. The advice of conservatives such as Hamilton-that surveys should be pushed slowly and the areas open to settlement restricted to make for more compact development-was disregarded. So also were the views of some westerners who thought limitations should be placed on the amount of land individuals could purchase to prevent absentee capitalists from monopolizing areas and to discourage local residents from overextending their commitments. Later, recognizing its responsibility for encouraging unwise purchases which the buyers found they could not 51 Act of May 18, 1824, 4 Stat. 24; American State Papers, Public Lands, IV, 770. 52 Payson J. Treat, The National Land System, pp. 144ff. |
