OCR Text |
Show MILITARY BOUNTY LAND POLICIES 273 twice as much acreage as he could have for cash and enabled the latter to hide his usury, though most people knew how the business operated. Once speculators, brokers, and moneylenders had discovered how profitable it was to use warrants in the conduct of their operations in the West, the market value of the warrants rose rapidly, approaching $1.20 in 1854, and Congress was urged to issue them more liberally. Other groups were also interested in adding to the number of warrants in circulation, among them military officers of the Mexican War, soldiers of the Regular Army, those who had been called up or enlisted only to be discharged before the minimum of 12 days had elapsed, and a variety of other persons who had served with the armed forces in one way or another, both in the Mexican War or in previous Indian engagements. This combination was to prove unbeatable. During the next 5 years three significant and generous measures providing for the issuance of a far greater number of warrants were passed. Bounty Land Act of 1850 The Bounty Land Act of 1850 was .broader than that of 1847, extending benefits to a much larger number of men but giving them no more acreage. Bounty lands were to be given to officers and soldiers who had not previously received land and who had served in any of the wars since 1790, including those with the Indians. Those who had served 9 months were to have 160 acres, those with 4 months' service were to have 80 acres, and those who had served a month were to have 40 acres. The ban against using the warrants on preemption claims was relaxed by permitting their use with the consent of the settlers whose lands were to be entered.71 Congress tried again in 1850 to make warrants inalienable and came close to success. Westerners only had to look around to see almost everywhere in the public domain how extensively speculators and land and money brokers had used the warrants of 1847 to accumulate large holdings, held for the most part by nonresidents. They wished, as Benton had in 1847, to prevent the new issue of warrants from being made useful to such groups. Robert C. Schenck of Ohio told in Congress of two former members of the House who had aided in passing the Act of 1847 and then, through "jackall agents" at New Orleans and elsewhere had bought up soldiers' claims for $10, $20, and $30 each. One of these men had profited to the tune of $100,000.72 Senator James Shields of Illinois, who was in charge of the new bounty measure, said that it made warrants unassignable by declaring no conveyance, in relation to the warrant, good in law. Only after the land became the absolute property of the soldier was it possible for another to acquire it. Other Senators were not entirely convinced. Andrew P. Butler of South Carolina held that warrantees could still give a power of attorney to locate the land and at the same time convey all the soldiers' rights to such land. Benton, in his concern for soldiers against speculators tried again, as in 1847, to make both warrants and land inalienable, but Congress was not prepared to go that far.73 Altogether, 189,121 warrants, mostly for 40 and 80 acres, were issued under the Act of 1850. They required 13,165,880 acres for their satisfaction. The warrants were declared unassignable by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, which had the effect 71 Act of Sept. 28, 1850, 9 Stat. 521. 72 Cong. Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., June 24, 1850, p. 1287. 13App., Cong. Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 6, 1850, pp. 1786, 1689, 1691 ff. Butler favored making the warrants assignable and had some support from other Senators from the East who were aware that most warrantees would sell their rights and wished to make the transfer as easy and as profitable as possible. Another proposal, made by Mason of Virginia, would have instructed the Secretary of the Interior to provide the means to enter land in the West for the warrantee. |