OCR Text |
Show 190 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT such assignments were null and void, that the affidavits the men filed were "a mere blind compliance with the letter of the law, without any regard to its spirit," that a gross fraud had been committed and that all participants in the transaction had made themselves liable to prosecution for perjury.29 Registers and receivers of the local land offices had little reason to favor restrictions on public land entries or to be unsympathetic to speculators with whom, in numerous instances, they were closely linked. Large entries were much easier to put through than numerous small entries and the income from fees in relation to the time involved was larger. Complaints were received from men, who, while trying to enter tracts as small as 40 acres in crowded land offices, had seen prompt attention paid to the man with several land warrants or a large bankroll. It is not surprising, then, that the register of the Grand Rapids land office in Michigan should state that there were no objections to speculators entering graduation lands, though to be sure they were required to take the required oath of intention to settle and cultivate the land. The oath, however, according to the register, had no binding force, and the entryman need not be troubled about it. There is abundant evidence that efforts to make the weak restriction in the act meaningful did not receive wholehearted support in the local offices.30 John Wilson, shocked at the stories of abuses of the Graduation Act flooding into the General Land Office determined to tighten up on the acceptance of entries. In a circular of October 30, 1854, 12 weeks after enactment of the measure he defined the classes of entries that would be accepted: (1) persons who were actual settlers or occupants of the land they intended to enter or who might 29 Letters of P. A. Daumont, Nov. 2; B. M. Thomas, Nov. 6; John C. Heberd, Receiver, Nov. 22; John R. Jones, Register, Nov. 22, 1854 to John Wilson, GLO Files, and copy of letter of John Wilson to A. G. Selman, Nov. 13, 1854, in "Charges against Land Officers," Vol. 1, GLO Files. 30 Crandall. op. o/., p. 38. thereafter become settlers and who were entitled to preemption; (2) persons who desired the land for purposes of immediate settlement and cultivation; (3) and persons already occupying or owning land who wanted to secure adjoining tracts. The first two classes were required to submit proof of settlement before patents would be delivered. However, in the hurly-burly rush of land office business, the local officers, no matter how sincerely they tried to enforce the law, were not in a position to consider all cases coming before them with the care that a court might observe. Cases were reported of the lapse of 2 years between entry and the demand for patent without any settlement. In other instances evidence of some cultivation of the tract was provided but no evidence of occupancy. Some who had filed an entry hired others to make improvements and create some evidence of occupancy and cultivation. Others had made entries for children who were still too young to develop the land, and for their wives, both contrary to the Graduation Act. In May 1855, local officials were instructed to regard 2 months as a reasonable period within which settlement on the land should be begun. A later circular of the Land Office required a sworn declaration of settlement plus corroborative testimony of witness showing among other things that the entryman resided on the land, that he had made no contract or agreement for its sale or transfer, and that he was 21 years of age. In addition a full description of improvements and the number of acres in cultivation was to be presented.31 Wilson was no egalitarian land reformer but, since the title of the Graduation Act- "An Act to Graduate and Reduce the Price of the Public Lands to actual Settlers and Cultivators"-implied that it was peculiarly designed for settlers, he was determined to so apply it. His rigorous efforts to prevent non-settlers from taking advantage of the act brought down upon him a storm of criticism that indicates how effectively his regulations 31 Ibid., pp. 31-32. |