| OCR Text |
Show CASH SALES, 1840-1862 209 ports about public offerings of land at auction, but the right of unlimited purchase continued. In his report for 1856, Wilson's successor Hendricks maintained that, except for lands given for education and internal improvements which would be subject to disposition by the states, the true policy was "to secure the public lands to actual settlers thereon, and withhold them, as far as practicable, from speculators." For settlers on unoffered land the law prescribed no limit of time within which the preemptor should complete his entry and pay for the land. McClelland thought such indefiniteness was not good policy. Under existing law the only way to compel such settlers to prove up and take title was to proclaim the land for sale. He did not want to do this because once land was offered for sale nonsettlers would be enabled to engross large areas. But Congress could amend this situation by requiring settlers to complete their entries and pay for their land within a prescribed time, making public sales unnecessary and thus preserving the lands from speculators.82 Not only did Hendricks suggest to Congress how further speculation could be prevented in areas newly opened to settlement, but in the fiscal year ending July 30, 1856, he ordered no public land into market except tracts restored to entry after the railroads had made their selections; this seemed unavoidable under the law as it then stood. By 1857 Hendricks was of the opinion that the "numerous and extensive settlements" which had been made in Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan, had "so far matured, and the lands have been so long occupied, as to justify the government in expecting and requiring payment." He recommended that settlers on unoffered land be allowed one year from the date of their settlement and those on unsurveyed land be allowed a year from the completion of the survey and the return of the township plats to the local land office to pay for their claims. Under his plan settlers on unsurveyed land would still have had an undetermined period of time within which to complete their payments, depending on how soon the surveys were run, but those on surveyed lands would only have one year. Hendricks' recommendation was probably designed to steer between the West's demand for free land and the South's opposition to it. It was a less radical proposal than Jackson had made in 1836 when he favored restricting sales to actual settlers only "at a reasonable reduction of price . . . ." Jacob Thompson, McClelland's successor as Secretary of the Interior, was a large slave-owning planter of Arkansas. Like McClelland and Hendricks, he did not approve of the indeterminate length of time that settlers on unoffered land could use the public land without paying for it, the more so because all such settlers had an interest in "opposition to a public sale by proclamation, when the good of the country may require it." His remedy was a law requiring settlers on unoffered land "to make their proof and payment within a specified period . . . ." He said nothing about restricting purchase to actual settlers.83 James Buchanan found it difficult to steer his way between the two opposing groups on land questions. He followed the usual Democratic policy of deploring speculation and land accumulation by individuals and companies. But instead of supporting a measure restricting purchases of land to small tracts to actual settlers, he proposed "to limit the area of speculation as much as possible" by having the extinction of the Indian title and the extension of surveys "keep pace with the tide of settlement." This smacks of late 18th-century proposals to limit the area open to settlement so as to assure compact and orderly development. Also, it is not far from 82 S. Ex. Doc, 34th Cong., 3d sess., Nov. 29, 1856, Vol. II, No. 5 (Serial No. 875), Part 1, p. 190. 83 S. Ex. Doc, 35th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 2, No. 11 (Serial No. 919), Nov. 30, 1857, pp. 60, 99. |
