OCR Text |
Show PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS 117 of some eminent historians since, has made squatterism a term of reproach. It has been applied indiscriminately to all who questioned dubious titles and tried to test them by settling the land.91 Some squatters contributed to the disfavor in which their entire class was held by insisting on denying the rights of large owners of unused land, but the more careful fought against dubious titles and tried to have decisions of the courts reopened when clear evidence of fraud and perjury was unearthed. The events of this era of conflict over land titles helped Henry George to formulate his single tax philosophy and his bitter indictment of American land policy. It has resulted, George maintained, in the creation and perpetuation of many large estates instead of family-size farms.92 New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado Claims Elsewhere, in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado, there was left from the Mexican period a tangle of land claims over which men fought and litigated for many years. Ownership of the most promising land quickly passed into the hands of "Anglos" but, because owners were reluctant to let their title papers 91 Perhaps the outstanding illustration of attacks upon the squatters of California by a philosopher posing as an historian is Josiah Royce, in his California from the Conquest in 1846 to the Second Vigilance Committee in San Francisco, published in 1886. Royce speaks (p. 367) of the "squatters' conspiracy," the "wicked and dangerous use ... of the current abstractions about the absolute rights of man and the higher will of God. . . ." and the "lawless squatters"; he calls the Land Act of 1851 "the devil's instrument." His ferocious onslaught is typical of much that was written about California squatters in the 19th century. 92 Paul W. Gates, "Adjudication of Spanish-Mexican Land Claims in California," The Hunting-ton Library Quarterly, 21 (May 1958), 213 ff., id., "California's Embattled Settlers," California Historical Society Quarterly, 41 (June 1962), 99 ff.; id., "Pre-Henry George Land Warfare in California," California Historical Society Quarterly, 46 (June 1967), 121 ff. out of their hands, claims were still being presented for confirmation as late as 1885. Although an Act of July 22, 1854, authorized the surveyor general of New Mexico Territory to investigate the claims and report to Congress, of the 202 claims filed by 1885, only 48 had been confirmed and 22 patented by 1885. No action had been taken to present 300 claims. Though Calif ornians had complained loud and long about the extended litigation through which they had to go and the loss by the "Californios of their landed heritage as a result of the costly process," Clarence Pullen, surveyor general of New Mexico, regarded their claims, as well as those of the Texans, as having been "so expeditiously and effectively settled." He contrasted the encouragement to "immigration and public prosperity," which followed with the bleak and unhappy delays in his territory. During this long delay Indian raids, misplacements, fire, and wear and tear of time had led to the loss or destruction of many significant documents, and death had carried away many witnesses.93 Harold H. Dunham has picturesquely described the history of two of these combined claims, together amounting to 1,714,-764 acres. The claims were approved by the surveyor general and confirmed by Congress notwithstanding the fact that under Mexican law these claims could not exceed 11 leagues each or 97,416 acres together. The amazed settlers continued the fight against the huge claim, succeeded in having it later cut down to 97,000 acres by a Secretary of the Interior, but on appeal to the Supreme Court it was confirmed for the full 1,714,764 acres. The long delay in adjudicating the claims was ended in 1891 by an act setting up a court of private land claims to pass upon all such private land claims in Arizona and New Mexico Territories and Colorado. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the act was the limitation that no claim in excess of the 11 leagues allowed by the laws of Spain and 93 H. Ex. Doc, 49th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 11, No. 1, Part 5 (Serial No. 2378), pp. 526-29. |