OCR Text |
Show 240 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT intention to preempt land but were merely holding it for sale to others.56 Two features of the Preemption Act of 1841 came into conflict, producing much correspondence and difficult questions for the administrative officers to adjudicate. Once a settler had filed his declaratory statement indicating his intention to improve and subsequently preempt a tract on which no anterior claim of any sort had been established, his claim transcended any other that might later be established before he had proved up and paid for his land, unless the land had been withdrawn for some purpose. Under the 500,000-acre grant for internal improvements, states naturally tried to select the best possible lands, as the settlers were doing. At one point it was even thought that the states might have prior rights in selecting lands, even lands on which settlers were established, but this reasoning was finally abandoned by the General Land Office. A number of states entered into agreements with settlers who were improving their lands by which the latter would relinquish their Federal rights and agree to purchase the lands from the states. The General Land Office declined to permit such a procedure, and the states were required to choose their land elsewhere.57 Nevertheless state officers continued attempting to induce men who had already filed their declaratory statements to relinquish them and permit state selection. These efforts caused the General Land Office "much difficulty and delay."58 Abuses and Problems of Preemption By 1847 Commissioner Richard M. Young directed Congress' attention to an ominous development in the use of the preemption law 56 S. Ex. Doc, 27th Cong., 3d sess., Dec. 1, 1842, Vol. II (Serial No. 414), No. 10, pp. 84-85. 57 S. Ex. Doc, 28th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 14, 1843, Vol. II (Serial No. 432), No. 15, p. 8. 68 Richard M. Young, Commissioner, so reported on Nov. 30, 1847, S. Ex. Doc, 30th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. II (Serial No. 504), No. 2, p. 17. which was not to be ended until its repeal in 1891. Many persons were taking advantage of the law by filing declaratory statements on land subject to private entry, which permitted them to hold it for a year without making any improvements. During that time they might find a purchaser to whom they could sell a relinquishment, thereby anticipating later comers just as the larger capitalist speculators were doing. Actually, they were not allowed by law to file a second declaratory statement, but to enforce such prohibition was difficult. Possibly Young was a bit naive in suggesting an affidavit to indicate, when the declaratory statement was filed, that the claimant had made a bona fide settlement, and also "within thirty days after the commencement of such settlement, the requisite proof of such claimant's right. . . ." The General Land Office was ultimately to learn that no matter what proof of settlement and improvement was required, the procedures of the local land offices and their numerous responsibilities did not permit them to check up on such documents. Individuals were seldom caught in infractions of the land laws and even less seldom punished, though it was generally known that the laws were being extensively abused. As proof that the law was being abused, Commissioner Young showed that in the Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Dixon land offices of Wisconsin and Illinois, 16,146 declaratory statements had been filed but only 418 preemptions had been made. He neglected to point out, however, that many entries may have started under the preemption law and ended up as simple cash entries. The failure of the General Land Office to require that entries started as preemptions should be carried over on the record books as final entries under the same law makes it impossible today, as it did for Commissioner Young in 1847, to determine how much of the land sold for cash was actually preempted. In his report for 1849 Young returned to the charge, saying that "not three in a hundred" declaratory notices were |