| OCR Text |
Show 270 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT mails in order to pay the taxes before a penalty could be added.59 In addition to tax problems, the owners of bounty lands in Arkansas were troubled by the poverty of the land allotted to them-its general infertility and lack of fair drainage. All of these things contributed to the unfavorable reputation Arkansas lands and people early acquired, and to the slow growth of the territory.60 The Tract in Missouri A third military tract was established in 24 townships north of the Missouri River in Randolph, Macon, Chariton, and Carroll Counties, Missouri. As warrant holders were privileged to select the territory or state in which they wished to have their land located, much the larger number chose Illinois first and Arkansas next. The Missouri tract being 96 miles west of the Missouri River and 174 miles from St. Louis offered the least inducement for selection, so far as location was concerned. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence concerning the experience of settlers and warrant holders in the Missouri tract for the usual indexes of state histories and state historical societies offer no information that would throw light on the question. It is instructive, however, that both Thomas Hart Benton and Ambrose H. Sevier, Senators from Missouri and Arkansas, respectively, out of their experience with military bounty land districts in their states, urged in 1847, when another and even more generous distribution of land bounties to veterans of earlier wars was being considered, that the utmost care be taken in framing the measure. They were particularly concerned that military bounties should provide substantial benefits to the warrantees, not to speculators, and that the 59 Arkansas Gazette, May 15, 1827; National Intelligencer, Oct. 3, 1829. 60 Carter (ed.), Territorial Papers, XV, 329. location of the warrants should not be confined to specially selected tracts.61 Once a right in land was created or conceded by the United States-even though there was a terminal point beyond which the right lapsed if requirements were not met- Congress found it impossible to avoid granting extension after extension. We have seen this with respect to the Virginia land warrants and it was true of the War of 1812 bounty warrants. The right to apply for warrants not previously obtained was extended in 1835, 1842, and 1854 and the right to locate them on any public lands open to entry was extended in 1842 and 1854. Finally, in 1858 the issue of warrants ceased and the right to locate them expired in 1863.62 Mexican War Bounties President James K. Polk's request to Congress for a Declaration of War against Mexico in 1846 revived the question of land bounties as a means of inducing enlistment and rewarding soldiers who served for the duration of the war. Circumstances were different in 1847, however, than in 1811 and 1812 when the previous issues of bounty warrants had been made. Land prices had since been reduced by 37^ percent, the smallest tract one could purchase had been lowered from 160 to 40 acres, and, though credit had been abolished, it must have seemed easier to most settlers to buy government land in 1847 than it had been in 1812. Yet it was the view Qf members of Congress from both western and 61 Cong. Globe, 29th Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 14, 15, 16, 1847, pp. 173, 184, 206. In Chariton County, Mo., most of which was bounty lands, An Illustrated Historical Atlas of Chariton County, Mo. (Philadelphia, 1876), shows W. G. Webb owning 7,270 acres, Thomas Ferguson 2,080 acres, and J. P. Williams 3,710 acres. Though one of 115 counties, Chariton had 13 of the 685 farms over 1,000 acres and 31 percent of its farms tenant operated in 1880 as compared with 27 percent for the state. 62 Between Feb. 11, 1800, and Feb. 8, 1854, Congress adopted 23 measures extending the time in which veterans of the Revolution and the War of 1812 could apply for and enter their military bounty land warrants. |
