OCR Text |
Show 470 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT and entries, and relinquishments of which are then offered for sale like stocks in the market. To such an extent is this proceeding carried that it is becoming difficult for an actual settler to obtain access to a quarter section of public land in desirable agricultural localities without first buying off a pretended claim that has no foundation other than the facility added by this statute for making and relinquishing it."20 In 1884 McFarland repeated his recommendation for the repeal of the preemption laws, the Timber Culture Act, the section of the Act of 1880 relating to relinquishments, the Desert Land Act, and the Timber and Stone Act which were also being abused.21 He urged that the period in which homesteads could be commuted to cash entries be increased from 6 months to 2 years. Though the timber and stone entries were relatively few compared with the number of commuted homesteads and preemption entries, they were being made on the most valuable timberland in the possession of the United States which McFarland thought should be sold at its fair value. So many and so flagrant were the charges coming before him concerning abuse of the law by "home and foreign companies" on the Pacific Coast that he ordered all entries suspended to allow time for more careful investigation. He found the preventive measures available to him "wholly inadequate" and could see no way 20 Ibid., p. 28. The practice Of establishing claims beyond the single quarter-section for resale had been common since the first settlements in Ohio. The Act of May 14, 1880, provided that when relinquishments were filed on homesteads, preemption or timber culture claims in local land offices the tracts thus freed of claims were immediately subject to entry. 21 Stat. 140. 21 The Timber and Stone Act of June 3, 1878, was ostensibly to enable settlers to acquire ownership of a nearby quarter-section of timber land for their own use but its framers knew from the outset that it would be primarily used by dealers in timber lands. It is discussed in Chap. XIX, "Early EIForts to Protect Public Timberlands." of protecting the government against loss because the requirements of the law" are slight and easily evaded, and evidence of fraudulent proceedings rest so much within the knowledge of interested parties that specific testimony can rarely be obtained. Thus, while results are observable, easily demonstrated, and of common notoriety, the processes by which they are reached are difficult to trace in a legal proceeding." Repeal, he thought, was the only way to stop the abuse. He also took up the question of the fences on the public lands again and urged the adoption of legislation which would make it possible to bring speedier action against those responsible for the illegal fences than the cumbersome court procedure through which the office had to work.22 It should be clear that it was not William A. J. Sparks, Cleveland's Land Commissioner, who first tried to bring all these issues to public attention. McFarland in every report made forceful and well-argued recommendations. True, like his predecessors, he disregarded the need for the flexibility which preemption and timber culture entries provided in the arid lands, and when he spoke about consolidating preemption and homestead he did not make clear whether he was advocating only a 160-acre homestead or whether he would support a larger unit of land entry. McFarland also pressed forward the work of the timber agents in ferreting out illegal plundering of timber on the public lands, a topic which will be discussed later. But what was most wanted was to establish respect for the law not to catch, fine, and jail every plunderer.23 To investigate fraudulent entries McFarland had 36 special agents in the field. Their work resulted in the cancellation in 1884 of 680 entries, mostly homestead, preemption, timberland cash, and timber cul- 22 Land Office Report, 1884, pp. 6-8, 17. 10 Ibid., pp. 144-45. |