OCR Text |
Show USE AND ABUSE OF SETTLEMENT LAWS, 1880-1904 475 settler, not planning to relinquish or to mortgage and get out and therefore in no haste to acquire a patent, would not suffer from Sparks' suspension order and indeed might welcome it as promising that in the future less land around him would be held for speculation and more would be in the hands of actual farm makers interested in developing the economic and social facilities of the region. Representatives of the public land states influenced, so it was charged, by their close political associations with cattle syndicates, land speculators, and loan agents were joined by politicians from older states looking for means to hurt the Cleveland administration in a campaign of calumny against Sparks and the agents who had unearthed the scandals, even though some of these agents had been first appointed in the Hayes-Garfield-Arthur period.36 A Nebraska Congressman called the special agents, spies, "political papsuckers" who were undermining the titles of honest settlers. He was particularly harsh on Sparks against whom he was conducting a personal vendetta because Sparks had suspended many entries in which he and his brother had an interest. Although there was evidence of strong partisan feelings in the attack on Sparks, leading Republicans like Elihu Washburne, David Davis, and Lewis Payson strongly defended his action as implementing and supporting the recommendations of McFarland.37 Political lead- 36 It was in this connection that an advertisement of Bishop Perkins, member of the House and President of the Equitable Trust and Investment Co. of Wichita, Kansas, announcing mortgage loans at 6 and 8 percent on some of the best lands in Kansas at one-third their value at forced sale was included in the Cong. Record, 49th Cong., 1st sess., June 28, 1886, p. 6250. Perkins' reply was that investment companies did not make loans to fraudulent occupants of the public lands but testimony appeared over and over again that they made loans to entry-men on the security of the land before the law sanctioned their action. Ibid., p. 6289. ers of the Great Plains liked investigation agents no better than Stephen A. Douglas and John Wentworth had liked the agents who ferreted out the plundering of timber on government lands in the 1850's. No matter how just the charges Sparks brought against the plunderers of the public lands or how necessary the action he had taken in suspending land entries if the lands were to be saved for actual settlers, he had made the error of alienating influential people who controlled the local and national newspapers. He had little support except from civil service reformers and journals like the New York Nation and the New York Times.38 In his zeal to prevent fraud and save the public land from the "monopolist" Sparks seemed to exhibit a Napoleonic complex at times and committed more than one error which made it easier for his enemies to secure his removal. He held that persons could not, after perfecting a preemption entry, commute a homestead entry to cash, thereby reversing a practice long since permitted. He also tried to forbid the acceptance of applications under the Preemption, Timber Culture, and Desert Land Acts, thus nullifying these acts. Both orders were reversed by the Secretary of the Interior.39 37 Cong. Record, 49th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 5735-36 and App., p. 253. Laird's defense is not altogether convincing but the accusation seems to have done him no harm in Nebraska for he was re-elected three successive terms. Lewis Payson, Representative from Illinois, made the best defense of Sparks' suspension order in Cong. Record, 49th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 6237-45. 38 New York Times, Dec. 5, 8, 1885, Jan. 11, 1886. The latter paper called the Tribune, which joined in the scurrilous attack upon Sparks, the "organ of the land thieves." 39 New York Times, March 18, June 5, 1886. Lamar had approved the order suspending the acceptance of applications for preemption, timber culture, and desert land claims but reversed himself and ordered its recision when its political dangers became obvious. Sparks responded to a Senate inquiry about the order giving many instances of (Cont. on p. 476.) |