| OCR Text |
Show 426 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT claimant of his right. More than one spokesman complained that Washington attorneys were able to gain preferment for cases, claimants they represented, patents they sought, and other actions that because of the increasing complexity of legislation and administrative decisions required the employment of attorneys. Other complaints related to the complex forms, the amount of supporting evidence necessary to prove up on preemptions and homesteads, affidavits, and the long journeys to the land office to complete the necessary forms. It was frequently said that when a claim was contested, the litigation and the tremendous amount of testimony one had to assemble were so time-consuming and expensive as to make it not worthwhile to press the fight. Yet many did, not being willing to be bested.72 One Federal office holder, John Wasson, surveyor general for Arizona, was unusually frank in answering the questions submitted to him by the commission. He advised that the Desert Land Act be repealed because of the ill success of settlers trying to gain ownership under it; consequently the act had brought the entire land system into contempt. Efforts of special agents appointed to detect depredations upon the public land ended too often in the agents extorting money from the guilty to the disgrace of the public service without providing effective protection or rightfully punishing trespassers. Wasson thought that homesteading on small tracts should be retained wherever there was land suitable for farming but on the mesa or tableland whole townships should be sold at a nominal price.73 The testimony of Vale P. Thielman, clerk of the District Court of Turner 72 Ibid., pp. 83, 261, 324-25, 326-27. 73 Ibid., pp. 1-4; Thomas Glen Alexander, "The Federal Frontier: Interior Department Financial Policy in Idaho, Utah, and Arizona, 1863-1896" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1965), pp. 181-82. County in southeastern Dakota, is interesting both because of its detail and its view that the government was too generous with its land. In 1870 Thielman settled in Turner County where he filed on a quarter-section under the preemption law. He lived on the tract 6 months, built a house 10 by 12 feet for $75, had 5 acres broken at a cost of $25 and a well dug for $6. He set out 300 forest trees that cost him $5 and entered his tract with agricultural college scrip that cost $170. He does not mention land office fees. During the time he was on the land he says he earned his board and $87, which may have come partly from his agricultural operations and partly from helping others find suitable tracts on which to file. (In addition to his clerical duties he was a land dealer "and located settlers on public lands.") He was convinced that settlers could earn their living and gain title to their homesteads with prudent management and energy. Thielman thought the 480 acres persons could get through entries under the three settlement laws were too much for them to use effectively and he reported that a good deal of the land got into the hands of speculators. He was most familiar with southeastern Dakota but applied his remarks to all of the territory except the Badlands. I think if our laws were so made that any one person could only take 160 acres of a homestead and could only keep that by living on it and improving it, it would be more satisfactory. At present the settlements are so thin that people cannot have school and church privileges, and nearly every other quarter section is owned by some one that does not live on it and that holds it for a raise in land. One hundred and sixty acres of farming land is enough to support a good large family, and give a good support and have neighbors close together, and if parties taking homesteads were compelled to live on them, say, six or seven years or lose them, none but those who intended to take them and make a permanent home out of them would have anything to do with them, and such a law would hurt none that were honest in their intentions, but on the contrary |
