OCR Text |
Show 226 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT Whatever the intention of Congress, the Preemption Act of 1830 was not interpreted to allow preemption of unsurveyed land and no procedure was provided for permitting special surveys in individual cases, as was done in California and other states at a later time. The Illinois Legislature complained in 1831 that because plats and surveys had not arrived at the land offices in time, a thousand settlers entitled to preemption under the Act of 1830 had not been able to gain title to their land. At the same time Joseph Duncan was saying in the House that there were 10,000 settlers in northern Illinois who were denied the benefits of the law because surveys had not been extended to that section.22 Much the same situation prevailed in Arkansas where surveys had fallen well behind the vanguard of settlers pushing on to the frontier. No appropriations for surveys had been made in 1830, though there was a carryover from the previous year's appropriation which permitted the work to go on slowly. As should have been anticipated, the Commissioner of the General Land Office complained that inadequate funds had prevented the surveyors general from examining and testing the accuracy of surveys and preparing duplicate plats and descriptive notes and had forced the postponement of many public sales. From the point of view of those who favored a wide-open West with surveys and public sales being pushed all the way from northern Michigan to southern Florida and Louisiana, the delay caused by absence of funds was unfortunate.23 Complaints about the pace at which surveys were being extended led to a good deal of argument in the House in 1831 concerning 22 American State Papers, Public Lands, V, 250; Register of Debates, 21st Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 1, 1831, p. 474. 23 Annual Reports of Elijah Hayward, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Nov. 30, 1830, H. Ex. Doc, 21st Cong., 2d sess., (Serial No. 206), Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 58-59 and Nov. 30, 1831, H. Ex. Doc, 22d Cong., 1st sess. (Serial No. 216), Vol I, No. 2, p. 61. appropriations for the following year. Vinton of Ohio, now regarded by his western colleagues as a traitor to his section, argued for reduction. Surveys had been carried out far in advance of need, he declared; 10 times as much land had been surveyed as had been sold, and such a ratio reduced the price for which the government could sell its land. Such proliferation of surveys induced settlers to select only the best land and to scatter widely over a vast area. Clement Clay of Alabama replied that to reduce appropriations would ensure that settlers would scatter just the same over unsurveyed land, creating an ever-growing demand for preemption. Erastus Root of Delhi, New York-a community in the heart of a hilly, somewhat poor farming area where the land was mostly held on life leases by tenants who in a few years were to be involved in the anti-rent wars of the 1840's-was sensitive about the pull the West had for his constituents. Surveying so far in advance reduced the price of land, the consequence of which, he maintained, was "the strongest possible inducement for emigration to the West." The population is "sparsely scattered over the country" and the people "soon became semi-barbarians," he continued. Parochial arguments offered by men like Vinton and Root were met by John Quincy Adams, now a member of the House after having served as President. Adams contended that sales of land were increasing rapidly and that both surveys and additions to the staff of the General Land Office were essential for a proper functioning of the government's land policies. The proposed increased appropriations were not "at all extravagant," he felt. A combination of western Representatives and the more nationally minded members from the East carried the enlarged appropriation. An increasing number of eastern members of Congress were coming to see that western growth was not inimical to their section.24 24 Register of Debates, 22d Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 23, 1832, pp. 1853 56. |